dinsdag 11 september 2012

Words to the West - A 9/11 address

Words to the West - A 9/11 address

Ladies and gentlemen,

On this day, September the 11th, 2012, I have some difficult, but also important issues I wish to address, and some arduous, but necessary words I wish to speak.

On that faithful day, 11 years ago today, the insanity and murderous barbarism of a particular mad ideology and its raging, fanatical hatred of those not following its inhuman commandments, culminated in a series of acts of sheer evil that led to the death of nearly 3,000 innocent people. Innocent, I say, because they were not guilty of the crimes they were accused of by the miscreants who murdered them. Or, more correctly, they were "guilty" of these acts, but there is no reasonable ground to consider those crimes, let alone crimes worthy of death, except in the wicked, disturbed and odious world view of an insane ideological system.

This insane, murderous ideological system masquerades as a religion, but if one takes an open-minded and critical look at it, it soon becomes apparent that it is in fact a totalitarian, fascist political and ideological system with religious aspirations and seemingly pious religious aspects that seeks to dominate the world, subjugate all of mankind to its barbaric rules. This system is based on the evil, odious, hallucinogenic ramblings of a seventh century desert warlord, psychopath, mass murderer, torturer and pervert named Muhammad ibn Abdallah, who claimed to be the final prophet of a god named Allah. The ideological system he founded of course is Islam. Islam is the ideology that brought forth the horrendous terrorist mass murder carried out on 9/11, which stands out for many reasons amongst the countless other atrocities Islam has generated since it originated.

Why were so many people brutally murdered by Muslim miscreants? What was the 'crime' of those slaughtered in these large-scale acts of Islamic terrorism? These people were killed, essentially, because they were what Muslims call 'kuffar' or unbelievers. People who disbelieved in Islam and did not adhere to its commandments. They were murdered because they did not submit to Islam, and were part of a radically different ideological, political, religious, social, legal and cultural system, which is often referred to using a geographical description: "the West" or "the Western world".

America was specifically targeted because it is, in the words of terrorist commander-in-chief Osama Bin Laden himself, "the leading power of the unbelievers". Bin Laden and Al Qaeda sent a gang of evil miscreants into America, made them infiltrate into America and ordered them to abuse America's systems and commodities and use them against America, as they worked on an evil plan to attack and strike America in its very heart, a plan they carried out on 9/11. The goals of these terrorists were to attempt to destabilize, weaken and disrupt America, strike fear into its heart and perhaps make America submit to Islam. These goals are shared by Islamic groups and terrorists to this day.

On that faithful day these evil Muslim barbarians carried out the attacks they had been planning for a long time. They used passenger planes to attack the heart of America, and in fact of the entire West. Most of the people they slaughtered were innocent civilians; many others were civil servants such as firefighters. They carried out this slaughter in the name of their god, Allah, and used a book they consider holy, the Quran, to justify these evil acts, citing verses like these two:

When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger. Sura 8:12
Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph. Sura 9:111

If one reads verses like these, it should be clear that not only the Islamic ideological system is evil in its very core, but also that the Islamic ideology is a license to kill and commit acts of terrorism. Islam is clearly the only culprit for the 9/11 attacks. Islam not only justifies crime, torture, murder and terrorism to be carried out in the name of its god and prophet; Islam actually commands its followers to commit such acts, or, as the Quran says in Sura 2, verse 216, "warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you", 'you' here of course being Muslims, and specifically Muslim men. The 9/11 attacks were an act of war committed by Islam against the West.

Yet some people in the West keep on saying that all religions are essentially the same, and that all religions are also essentially bad. This is not only a demonstrably false statement; it is also a very dangerous statement. If one looks at the history of Islam and at the way it is practiced today, one has to blind or unwilling to see what is in plain sight, which is that violent, barbaric and evil acts are systematically committed and advocated in the name of and for the sake of Islam.  The history of Islam as well as the life of the so-called messenger of the divine, Muhammad, bath in oceans of blood and are ridden with horrific and stomach-churning tales of cruelty and barbarism of the worst kind.

Not only is Islam's history one of war, blood and atrocities; this is also Islam's present. The warfare and barbarism committed in the name of Islam continue onto the present day. The manners in which these acts are committed have changed, and so have the scope and scale of those fighting in the name of Islam. But the warfare and barbarism have never ceased. In fact, they have gotten worse. Although Islam and the societies were it calls the shots largely reject modernity, modern communication technology and modern weaponry are often embraced by Islamic societies and by Islamic terror groups. This has given terrorists unprecedented possibilities to cause death and destruction, and has given them many new ways to commit slaughter. New technologies have not only changed, but often also worsened the warfare and barbarism of Islam and the consequences thereof.

But this is not all. Cultures and societies based on Islam and its values, which have often been conquered by Islam and subjugated to it first, exhibit a sickening array of barbaric, inhuman and evil practices, customs and 'values', including, but by far not limited to an extremely far-reaching and inhuman subjugation of women, honor killings, barbaric forms of punishment and execution, often carried out in public in front of cheering,, enthusiastic crowds, murder of those who doubt or leave Islam, slavery, child abuse, suffocating conformism enforced by violent vigilantism and cruel religious animal slaughter.

And yet some people in the West state that all cultures are essentially equal, that there are no better or superior cultures, and that it is not possible or even acceptable to hold other cultures to the standards of Western culture, because no absolute and universal norms and values exist, and there are no absolute, universal rights and wrongs. This view is called cultural relativism. This principle, however, needs to be viewed as wrong, pernicious and dangerous, and thus not be accepted as valid. Why is that so? Because the principle of cultural relativism demand that not only we know about or even try to understand the standards and practices of other cultures, but also that no judgment is passed upon the standards and practices of other cultures. It also demands all cultures are viewed as equal, and that no judgment is made about the superiority and inferiority of specific cultures.

The end result of this is that no criticism of aspects and practices of other cultures is permissible. Thus it becomes impossible to argue that anything a specific culture does is right or wrong. There can no longer be any judgment of the standards and practices of other cultures. This is very dangerous and wrong because not permitting judgment of the practices and standards of other cultures can and often will lead to allowing practices that are clearly - even to relativists - inhuman and inflict pain, misery or even death to continue, and standards that are obviously oppressive and stifling to exist unchanged.

Often such standards and practices will not only be permitted to continue, but also be apologized for or even validated.  Cultural relativism excuses evil practices and oppressive standards and allows them to continue, because there are supposed to be no absolute, universal rights or wrongs. It is however clear, even when only using 'feelings', that some acts are indefensible and wrong, and that such rights or wrongs do in fact exist. One of the foundational premises of cultural relativism is thus obviously wrong, and this is one of the reasons why cultural relativism crumbles upon itself, as well as a major reason why it is pernicious and dangerous, and needs to be rejected.

Those who, like me, deplore cultural relativism, however believe that not only some absolute and universal rights and wrongs DO exist, but also that one can and should pass judgment, not only on the standards and practices of different cultures, but also on the superiority or inferiority of different cultures related to one another. I do believe that there are cultures that are superior to others, and I make such a judgment by looking at the standards, beliefs and practices of different cultures.
Therefore, I make the following statement: Western culture is superior to many other cultures, and it is specifically superior to the Islamic culture. In fact, the superiority of Western culture to Islamic culture reaches far. The Islamic culture is deeply inferior to Western culture. It is about Western culture, its origins and what I understand to be its foundational principles that I now wish to speak.

First of all, it is obvious that the origins, foundational principles and themes are many and diverse. However, one can probably, at least in part, trace back the origins of Western culture to the days of the Greeks and the Romans. Of lesser importance, but still noticeable is the influence of Ancient Greek and Latin on all Western languages to the present day. More important and with greater impact are the influence of the Greeks and Romans on art and architecture in the West, as well as the influence of Greek and Roman philosophers and thinkers on Western philosophy and thought to the present day. Also an important influence is the tradition of the importance of the rule of law, which can be traced back to the Greeks and the days of philosophers such as Aristotle.

The other major birth ground of Western culture is formed by the religions of Judaism and Christianity. The influence of Judeo-Christianity on Western culture goes very deep and wide. It would probably lead us way too far to discuss this in great detail, so I will just point out a few obvious areas of influence of the Judeo-Christian tradition. First of all, historically and up until the present day, Judeo-Christianity has informed and influenced the laws in Western countries. Second, also morality and ethics have been greatly influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition. Third, many of the past (and possibly present) social norms and customs of Western societies were directly or indirectly influenced by Judeo-Christianity. Fourth and final, cultures that have Judeo-Christianity in their origins have brought forth both great and marvelous scientific discoveries and inventions, but also great ideas and philosophies that have made at least a part of the world a better place. I do not believe Judeo-Christianity has not in some way been instrumental in these developments.

It is upon this last aspect that I wish to build somewhat. Try to think for a second about what is one of the most important words and concepts in contemporary Western thought and culture. Can you pin-point a word? The word that comes to my mind is freedom, or liberty. Liberty is a foundational concept of the West, and one that is not only largely foreign, but also deeply unwelcome to Islamic cultures. Even Muslims and Jihadists often understand this, such as this young Saudi Jihadi, quoted by Robert Spencer: "In essence the kufr [unbelief] of Western society can be summed up in one word which is used over and over to justify its presence, growth, and its glorification … Freedom. Yet what such a society fails to comprehend, is that such ‘freedom’ simply represents the worship and enslavement to desires, opinions, and whims, a disregard for what is (truly) right, and a disregard for the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth." Freedom as the West's "religion"? In a sense, that is actually true, because the West considers freedom to be a central and highly important principle, and in a way, in the West liberty has an element of sacredness to it. 

This apparent focus on liberty is not just recent; it can be traced way back in the history of the West. This focus on liberty was already present when the document that led to the birth of one of the greatest countries in the world, the United States of America, was drafted. The immortal words of the Declaration of Independence state: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These words clearly suggest, if not outright state that liberty is considered a central and important foundational concept in Western cultures. The same sentiment is reflected in the Constitution of the United States, and similar sentiments can be found in the French Revolution's Declaration of the Right of Man and of the Citizen. More recently, these sentiments can also be found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Another point worth making is that Western societies, as opposed to Islamic societies, have known an Age of Enlightenment, as well as the rise of rationalism, freethinking, critical thought and civil debate of almost everything. Western culture has also embraced many facets of science.  Islamic cultures have notably not had such a development, and many of these cultures in many areas remain stuck in an often barbaric seventh century tribal system from the desert.  This should not come as a surprise. These things were cradled in the lap of Christianity; in fact, they were born out of it. Western culture has seen these developments, because it has Judeo-Christianity in its foundation. Without Christianity, they likely wouldn't have happened, as in Islamic cultures.

Although it certainly has not always been practiced, Christianity has a history of fostering the separation of church and state - which, however, does not mean that religious people cannot be involved in politics, or have an influence on government and its policies. Indeed, it could very well be argued that Christianity has the separation of the affairs that belong to the church's realm and those that belong to the realm of the state as one of the tenets of the faith. A verse often cited in support of this view is Matthew 22:21:"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

Judeo-Christianity cultures also have the notions of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of the press. While Christianity has not always accepted, let alone fostered these notions, they have a fairly lengthy history in Judeo-Christian and Western cultures. These notions were already present, for example, in the First Amendment and the Bill Of Rights to the United States Constitution, which came into effect in 1791. Such notions are also found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Certainly these documents were influenced by the views and values of the Enlightenment and by rationalism, but, once again, these developments were cradled in Christianity's lap.

 It is rather difficult to explain why and how Christianity has brought forth developments, ideas and schools of thought that may seem (and sometimes are) at odds with Christianity, and exactly how Christianity has allowed and fostered developments and advances; and I'm afraid I cannot explain and argue this reasonably well, so I will leave that to others. But what I am fairly certain is that (Judeo-) Christianity has done these things. I repeat: Judeo-Christian cultures have known all the things that I have mentioned, whereas for example Islamic cultures have not. That ought not to be a surprise. And Christianity has most certainly contributed to civilization and its development, often also in positive ways.

Therefore, I have a reasonable amount of respect for religion and more specifically for those with a Jewish or Christian faith, although I am not myself Jewish or Christian. I know that I do not agree with all aspects of Judaism or Christianity, and I know I could potentially criticize certain aspects of these faiths. I also know that I will - not by a long stretch - agree with Christians on everything. But I see commonalities, and I recognize the Judeo-Christian influence on the culture I am part of, and on my own thoughts. Therefore, I will always try to respect those of faith and their views. I refrain from direct attacks on people because they are of faith and from frontal attacks on their faiths as such. I also believe this is a good attitude for those not of faith, or of different faith.

A final aspect of the West that I see may be a more personal view, and it is also likely to be somewhat more recent. What I mean is that, compared to many other cultures including the Islamic culture, Western culture seems to be taking the individual human being more into account, whereas other cultures seem to be much more tribal in nature. That is not to say that Western culture disregards the community; rather, I think, it sees both the community and the individual as important, with the individual being part of the community and being the one to whom both rights and duties are granted. It is the individual who has both rights and duties, and is seen as sovereign and self-governing, as well as participant in and part of a larger community. In the words of Ayn Rand, the individual is the smallest minority, and thus individuals need their dignity and rights recognized and respected. Many times more than Islamic cultures do Judeo-Christian cultures achieve this. Christianity has also fostered this, and can be seen as a far less tribal and more individual religion than Islam (which isn't really a religion anyway).

I think that by now you have probably understood that I love in the West. The part of my exposé you have just passed, served several purposes at the same time. First of all, I have tried to argue why the West is superior to Islamic cultures in particular. Secondly, I have tried to give some, however limited, insight into the origins and foundational principles of Western culture. Thirdly, I have also attempted to offer a defense of Western culture as being a deeply human and civilized culture that highly values liberty and that offers dignity and rights to people.

I'm fairly certain that by now you have understood that I love the West and Western culture, and that I am firmly convinced that Western culture is superior. Many may disagree with me, but, to again quote Ayn Rand: "The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see." One of these 'glaringly evident' things which I believe many decide not to see, is the decisive, definitive and objective superiority of Western culture over, for example, the Islamic cultures. I believe there are many arguments for this superiority, and I have attempted to give some. I could give many more, but I will conclude this by saying that one must be an idiotic cultural relativist not to see the validity of at least some of my arguments and of the many others that exist.

Now that I have concluded this lengthy 'ode to the West', I would like to say some more words about Islam and the societies were it calls the shots, and point out some more differences between Islamic cultures and Western cultures.

A first thing I'd like to mention is a difference I perceive between Muslim demonstrations and 'Western' demonstrations - demonstrations by non-Muslims. What I mean by demonstrations here, are demonstrations in the streets: large groups of people, banners, signs and noise. One thing I have noticed about Muslim demonstrations, which are getting more and more common in Western countries as well, is that they are often very angry, very loud shouting matches that appear rather frightening. Also, the amount of violent, hate-filled and downright threatening rhetoric at Muslim demonstrations is sometimes frighteningly high. 

The signs and banners at some Muslim demonstrations are also quite telling. Muslims have - on several occasions, not just once - carried signs saying things like "Freedom go to hell", "Islam will dominate the world", "Death to Jews", "USA you will pay", "Bomb bomb USA", "Behead those who insult Islam" and so on.  Besides the amount of threats, violent rhetoric and hatred, Muslim demonstrations exhibit a much higher level of intimidation than Western style demonstrations.

The chants and calls at Muslim demonstrations are also often filled with violence, threats and hatred. One chant, which Muslims have used in places as far apart as Palestine, New York City and Copenhagen, goes in Arabic: "Khaybar Khaybar ya yahud, jaysh Muhammad saufa ya'ud", which translates to "Khaybar Khaybar O Jews, the army of Muhammad shall return". It is obvious this is a direct and severe threat to Jews. Other chants at Muslim demonstrations have included an array of other threats to Jews, threats to the United States and a plethora of insults and death threats to people who insult, criticize or oppose Islam.

Specifically, the Khaybar chant refers to an episode from Muhammad's life, documented by Muslim historian Ibn Ishaq. When the Muslims under the command of Muhammad clashed with the people of the city of Khaybar, according to Ibn Ishaq the custodian of the treasure of the people of Khaybar (the Banu Nadir) , a Jew named Kenana Ibn Al-Rabi refused to produce the treasure and give it to Muhammad. He was subsequently tortured by kindling a fire on his chest until he was nearly dead, after which he was finally beheaded. I don't need to point out the obvious cruelty of this torture and the savagery of those who inflicted it.  I will, however, put some emphasis on the selfish and materialistic motives behind the torture. It was inflicted to get a treasure; to acquire wealth. Probably the fact the custodian was a Jew also played a role.

Another aspect of Muslim demonstrations is that they are prone and not at all unlikely to erupt into violence. We have seen this with the Arab Spring, and we've seen it in Western cities as well, for example in Antwerp and Brussels, were Muslim demonstrations have ended up becoming riots. As the latter is concerned - Muslims seem rather prone to rioting as well. Several Western cities have seen often very violent Muslim riots. Also, many of the Arab Spring demonstrations were downright riots, which often developed into violence and other animalistic behavior, such as the assault of any unlucky females ending up within or walking into Muslim riots.

I will introduce my next points by quoting Sir Winston Churchill, from his 1899 book "The River War". In his book, Winston Churchill says, amongst others, these things about Islam: "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy." and "Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step."

Churchill points to several things I, and many other critics of Islam have also noticed. First of all, there is what Churchill aptly calls "the fanatical frenzy". One only has to take a look at Muslim protestors, carrying insulting and threatening signs and shouting vile hatred and threats, or at Jihad warriors to know what he probably meant. You can see this frenzy on the faces of these dangerous savages. Another thing Churchill points to is the "fearful fatalistic apathy" and the impediment Islam poses to social development - Islam as "the strongest retrograde force in the world".

The fatalistic apathy is represented by a phrase often used by Muslim: Insha'Allah, if Allah is willing. In this phrase, a very fatalistic approach to and a lot of apathy about life are bound up. In the Muslim mind, if Allah wills it, anything can happen, and Muslims will get what they want. There is no appeal to the use of self-governance, human reason, human endeavors or hard work in order to achieve human needs and wants or social development. Something I think does exist in the Judeo-Christian tradition and in Western societies. The fatalistic apathy of "Insha'Allah" that is so distinctive of Muslims, together with many other tenets and doctrines of the Islamic faith, such as its teachings on the organization and leadership of a society, certainly not only impede, but often also prohibit any social development or change. And because Islam's legal and moral doctrines, as well as its teachings on the organization of society are bound up in both seventh century tribal codes and totalitarian theocratic laws and principles, Islam has remained trapped, and remains trapped to the present day in the days of that immoral Bedouin, Muhammad, himself. In that sense, Churchill has it right when he calls Islam the strongest retrograde force that exists. Islam IS a retrograde force.

Churchill further says that Muslim exhibit, besides a "fanatical frenzy", a knowledge of fighting and dying. He notes that Islam is a militant and proselytizing faith that spreads - presumably aggressively - and raises fearless warriors. What he points to is another important aspect of Islam, which may actually be the most important aspect of all, as it poses the gravest danger.  What Churchill points to is the warrior and warfare aspect of Islam, which I have pointed to previously. Churchill is right when he says that Muslims know how to die, that Islam is a militant faith and that Islam raises fearless warriors.

Warfare is a central tenet of the Islamic ideology and has been since the days of Muhammad, who himself was a ruthless and cruel warlord. The Quran contains dozens of verses which call for warfare, in Islam often called Jihad. Warfare is not only allowed or advocated in Islam; as I mentioned earlier, it is commanded. Jihad is a foundational pillar of Islam and has been since its inception. In this respect, Islam also asks for, as well as advocates and glorifies death in warfare. Islam is a religion that loves death, especially the death of Muslim men in Jihad. Islam sanctifies killing others in its name, and being killed while fighting in the name of Islam. Islam sanctifies and glorifies martyrdom to an insane level.

Islam can very well be called an ideology of death. It glorifies and uplifts death, especially death in battle or martyrdom. While Judeo-Christianity does not forbid war for just causes, honors and pays respect to those who die in warfare, and while the Catholic branch of Christianity does have its own martyrs, often people who were tortured and killed for their faith, who are now revered as saints, Judeo-Christianity does not actively command warfare, nor does it command to subjugate others through warfare or to kill all unbelievers, and martyring yourself for your faith is not sanctified or glorified to the insane level it is in Islam. Judaism and Christianity, while having goals in the afterlife, are much more religions of life and good living than Islam, which is far more a religion, or better, a cult of death. In the words of Osama Bin Laden: "We love death. The US loves life. That is the difference between us two."

Not only does Islam sanctify and glorify martyrdom. It teaches martyrdom to children, especially male children, from a very young age, especially in regions where Muslims live in conflict. We can see this happening in Palestine, where young children are being indoctrinated into believing that it is glorious to blow up Jews, especially if you blow yourself up to do so. Together with the message about the glory of martyrdom, Islam also offers those who receive this message a reward in the afterlife for those who die for Allah's cause. Islamic martyrs get a heavenly reward.

This reward is aptly described in an alleged Hadith passage, of which the exact source is unknown to me, but which was quoted by Osama Bin Laden in his 1996 fatwa, in which he declared war on the United States: "a martyr privileges are guaranteed by Allah; forgiveness with the first gush of his blood, he will be shown his seat in paradise, he will be decorated with the jewels of belief (Imaan), married off to the beautiful ones, protected from the test in the grave, assured security in the day of judgment, crowned with the crown of dignity, a ruby of which is better than this whole world (Duniah) and its' entire content, wedded to seventy two of the pure Houries (beautiful ones of Paradise) and his intercession on the behalf of seventy of his relatives will be accepted."

The heavenly reward for Islamic martyrs is highly materialistic and intensely sexual. Specifically, martyrs get 72 young, beautiful virgins, the houries, to have intercourse with, alongside with not having to go through tests and judgments, rivers of wine, fruits and wealth, as described multiple times in Islamic scriptures. The paradise of Islam, al jannah in Arabic, is highly materialistic, sensual and sexual - compare this to the vastly different tales about the afterlife in Judaism and Christianity, or even other religions. This tale about Allah's sky brothel and heavenly feast and wealth, must certainly be attractive to especially young, angry, often poor and not very intelligent men. This is, unsurprisingly, the group usually targeted with and most susceptible to the message of Jihad and martyrdom, and most Jihadis fit into this mold. Muhammad and his successors, all the way to the terrorist leaders of the present day, have understood and understand this well, and act upon it.

I will bring up another point, again quoting Churchill: "The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men." I add to this an excerpt from an essay written by John Quincy Adams, the sixth president of the United States: "He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE." He here being Muhammad, and his doctrine being Islam.

Churchill and Adams say it very well. They both point out the far-reaching subjugation and degradation of women in Islam. It is worth noting that Adams noticed and wrote this in the first half of the 19th century, and Churchill did near the end of the 19th century. It is thus clear that Western culture has been much more positive about and respectful of women for a long time. Women have in the West been given respect, chivalry, legal and societal rights and protection for many, many decades. Many of these things predate the movements of the 1960s and 1970s, which often claim these things as their achievements, by decades. In fact, one could say women may always have been treated better and respected more in Western cultures since their inception, as compared to Islamic cultures. It is also worth noting that the female body and form have been upheld as a thing of beauty since the days of the Greeks and Romans, throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance and right unto the present day. This is not the case in Islamic cultures, and may be part of what Churchill called "degraded sensualism".

The subjugation and degradation of women is a core tenet of Islam, and has been since its earliest days. It is written into the scriptures Islam considers holy. I think it is obvious how Islam views women, when one reads Sura 4, verse 34 from the Quran: "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

This lone verse is a fairly good summary of the Islamic attitude towards women. First of all, it explicitly says men are superior to women: Allah has made men excel over women. It also says women need to be obedient - to an extreme degree, one understands - and actively encourages wife-beating, something that, at least today, in the West is thought to be completely unacceptable. Westerners also generally believe that women are equal to, although not the same as men. Many more Quranic verses, as well as sayings from the hadith exist regarding women. Nearly all of them are degrading and preach the subjugation of women.

The same neurotic and disgusting misogyny can be seen and heard in the speeches and writings of many Muslim clerics, scholars and preachers. I will give just one example out of many, a quote by the imam of the Lakemba Mosque in Sydney, Australia and former grand mufti of Australia and New-Zealand, Sheikh Taj El-Din Hamid Hilaly: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it… whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." Isn't this just plain disgusting? Well, that is Islam and its misogyny for you, raw and uncensored.

This misogyny has many consequences, and I won't get into that too deeply. I think it is sufficient to point out that Islam's modesty laws are very, very extreme, requiring women to wear headscarves, nikabs or burkas and shapeless, sack-like, degrading clothes, often black, in order not to be raped by Muslim men, who don't seem to be expected to show self-control or to respect women. Any woman who is not covered the Islamic way is considered "uncovered meat", completely ok and ready to be assaulted or raped.

Western women especially are 'uncovered meat' and whores who are thought to be always soliciting sex, asking to be raped, and not deserving of any respect. As usual, Muslim men are acting upon the insane views of their culture and religion, and in many European cities today Muslim men are executing a "rape jihad", resulting in nearly all rapes in these cities being committed by Muslim immigrant men. Islam's view of women is inhuman, disgusting and evil. And so are the consequences of this view. Winston Churchill rightly refers to slavery in the context of women in Islam; women are actually (nearly) slaves in Islam, and in some respects, women are even less than slaves. Certainly the fact that Islam allows polygamy is also part of its disgusting approach to women, marriage and sexuality.

Islam's misogyny is quite clear, it is often preached and spoken, and the practices resulting from it are carried out and are sometimes very visible. It is nothing new to state Islam is anti-women. I, however, want to make another statement, which may be less familiar and, at least superficially, less obvious, although it becomes apparent if one takes a good look. What is this statement? Well, in my view, Islam is not only a misogynist and anti-female religion; it is also anti-male, and thus Islam is a misanthropic, anti-human ideology.  Why do I say this? Well, Islam views men as unreliable, weak, animal-like and incapable of even the most basic forms of self-control and good behavior, especially in the presence of women, "the temptresses with their lures". Women are always seen as temptresses, while men are not expected, or even thought to be able to, show self-control and respect, unless women are shrouded in seventh century desert rags.

This view disregards the possibilities of free will, moral calculation and strength of character as well as self-restraint on the part of men. Men are seen as animals, controlled by lust. Islam completely denies the reasonable side and rational capacities of men. I find this a rather disgusting view. I also know that for me and many other men this is just not true, and it is not how I, as a young man, want to be seen. It is a view that is not compatible with any kind of good, civilized manliness I would envision. I find the Islamic view therefore indefensible and deplorable. It is also a very un-Western view. Western culture has for a long time envisioned a view much closer to my own, which has no doubt had an impact on me. Although practice has not always been - and is not always - consistent with this theoretical view, it has and is for the most part. If we look at Islamic cultures and the behavior of Muslim men, we see that they are also extremely and disgustingly congruent with Islam's view. The "rape jihad" of Western women is just one example.

The final point I wish to make about Islam deals with slavery. It is certainly true that the West and Judeo-Christian cultures have known slavery. Slaves and slavery are mentioned in the Torah and the Bible, and it is a fact that slavery existed in the time when the books of those scriptures were written. However, all Western countries have officially abolished slavery and freed the slaves a long time ago. And although some slavery(-like) practices may have been carried out more recently  or may have continued until more recently, slavery in Western countries (and their colonies) ended quite a long time ago. Slavery was (almost) entirely gone from the West by the start of the Second World War, or even earlier, at least as far as the democratic states and monarchies were concerned.

The abolishment of slavery in the West dates back a long time, whereas in many Islamic countries, slavery has not been abolished until the second half of the twentieth century. In several Muslim countries, although perhaps officially abolished, slavery continued unto the present day and goes unpunished. For example in Sudan slavery is practiced by Muslims - Nubians, Berbers and Arabs - over non-Muslims and sometimes over black Muslims, and slave trade has also continued unto the present day. Another country, Saudi Arabia, has officially abolished slavery 50 years ago, but in reality slavery continues in Saudi Arabia unto the present day, albeit in a different, modernized and somewhat more hidden form that often from afar appears respectable. The modern form of slavery in Saudi Arabia is the exploitation, abuse and arbitrary treatment of workers, mostly foreigners.

It is thus clear that the abolishment of slavery has come late in many Islamic countries, and that slavery and similar systems and practices exist in Islamic countries today. The blame rests on the usual suspect: Islam. Having originated in days when slavery was common, Muhammad and his gang were certainly no strangers to slavery. There are good reasons to believe they probably practiced slavery themselves. Certainly the Quran allows Muslims to practice slavery and own slaves. Islam allows the inhabitants of cities and regions conquered by Islam to be enslaved, and it allows the trade of slaves.

Islam also explicitly states slaves are part of the 'spoils of war' (to which an entire chapter or Sura of the Quran is dedicated); Muslim men are also specifically allowed to own sex slaves and have intercourse with female slaves whenever they wish. It is worth noting that, according to certain scholars in Islam, sex slaves are not required or even allowed to wear the garments and headgear of religious Muslim women. Sex slaves should apparently be "immodest", and an immodest women is likely seen as a sex slave. I sense there is a connection with the degradation and disgusting treatment of Western women by Muslim men in Western countries.

Both Winston Churchill and John Quincy Adams, whom I have quoted before, referred to slavery in their writings, and both staunchly opposed slavery. Both men probably also understood - as they obviously had a fairly clear understanding of the nature of Islam - that many of the tenets and practices of Islam support the continued existence of slavery, and Churchill seems to have known about the practices of slavery and slave trade carried out by the Arabs, to which he alludes in "The River War".

These were my final words about Islam as such - although it isn't totally absent from the rest of this address. We're starting to get closer to the end here now. I would like to speak some more words to the West, and more specifically, make an appeal to the West.

First of all, I am going to come back to the point I made earlier about liberty being a central tenet of the West. I come back to this because it is so important to understand the foundational nature of liberty to the West, and to know how much liberty matters. As a classical liberal/libertarian/libertarian conservative, I personally believe the best system is one based on liberty, individual freedom and voluntary community within a stable and limited framework of laws. In a piece called "Is freedom worth defending?", which he wrote for his blog Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer, a Christian critic of and scholar on Islam, states that he believes freedom should be the highest value of a society, and not 'the good', something which is not unlikely to be narrowly defined by a small group of totalitarians, like in a Sharia-controlled state, and something which - according to Spencer - it is very difficult to reach a common societal understanding upon beyond a small amount of basics likely to be cast into laws.

Spencer states that freedom, even up to a crazy level, is necessary and is an important part of genuine morality, and that achieving an arbitrary good through violent coercion, as Sharia states do, is not a good and virtuous way. Spencer believes this will mean tolerating or allowing some to exercise their freedom in ways we may not like or object to, as long as no laws are broken. Spencer, lastly, also states "that the Judeo-Christian tradition, with its principle of individual freedom as a prerequisite for virtue, offers a superior vision of God and the world than that offered by Ayatollah Khomeini and his sword as the key to paradise." I generally agree with Robert Spencer's approach, and I too believe that freedom should be in the bedrock of a society. I do not however think the notion of 'the good' should be entirely discarded. But it is admittedly a very difficult concept. I also believe the notion of freedom does not preclude criticism and judgment, which are actually themselves part of freedom under the notions of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

The question Robert Spencer poses in the title of his piece, "is freedom worth defending?" and which he doesn't answer explicitly, but rather implicitly yet clearly addresses, is a very interesting one. I personally would answer with a definite 'yes'. Freedom IS worth defending, and freedom should be defended. The West should clearly state that it values freedom and that freedom is in the bedrock of Western countries. Western countries should not allow Islam, Muslims and Sharia to infringe further upon the 'sacred' principle of freedom and the effects thereof. The West should continue to defend notions such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the press, as well as individual freedom. It must be made sure that the free West remains free. This will likely be a long and difficult road to hue, but one which cannot be ignored without grave consequences.

One thing that will be necessary in the West to achieve this, is unison and cooperation to counter the threat of Islam. As the following quote puts it fairly bluntly, "This is Islam: an absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, a rotting corpse which poisons our lives." The quote is sometimes attributed to Kemal Atatürk, founder of modern Turkey, but it is highly uncertain whether he ever said such a thing. In any case, whoever came up with this quote, is right. Islam is absurd, dangerous, immoral and poisonous. Islam is a danger to our lives and freedoms. Therefore, Islam must be resisted. To resist Islam, I believe we need a large and wide movement, consisting of people from all layers of society, from all kinds of occupations, from different creeds and with a variety of different lifestyles and ways of expressing themselves and their freedoms. To achieve this, it will be necessary to find common ground and to try to bypass certain differences, at least for the time being.

Another thing which is absolutely necessary is putting an end to political correctness regarding Islam in the West. We need to end cultural relativism - Western culture IS superior - and put a stop to apologetics for Islam and its evils. To achieve this, at least the following three things I believe will be necessary. First, widespread criticism, shaming and mocking of Islam, as well as blaming Islam for the crimes committed in its name and because of it, and not excusing the crimes of Muslims. Islam apologetics and political correctness regarding Islam need to be criticized as well. Second, criticism of Islam must be made more common and less something from the 'twilight zone' of crazy and dangerous thinking, tied to extremism or the 'far-right'. Therefore, I think it would be good to see criticism of Islam coming from many different angles. Negative attitudes towards Islam should be made into something that is not seen as bad, crazy or uncommon. Thirdly, those who criticize Islam and face opposition or difficulties should be supported and defended.

I think I have probably said enough. There are a lot more things I could and would love to say, both about Islam and about and to the West, but it is not possible to cram everything into this address. By now, this address has become long enough, and if I don't want to overstay my welcome, I need to finish soon. I started my address referring to 9/11, and I think an apt way to finish is would be to give a shot at a tribute to the victims of 9/11.

First, I wish to dedicate this address to the 'honored dead' of 9/11. In this piece, I have tried to dissect Islam and the evil that is in its very core, as well as some Western attitudes that refuse to see certain things about Islam, that allow Islamic evil to continue and even infiltrate into the West. Islam is the ideology (because it is not a religion, at all) that is responsible for the terrorist mass murder of 9/11. We need to think about the future of our countries, of our culture, and the future of ourselves and our children and grandchildren. We need to consider our future and what we need to do to ensure we have a good, free and bright future. Let us resist Islam, and work and if necessary fight for this future, in honor of those whose presence, joy and future were robbed on 9/11, when they were slaughtered by Muslims.

I wish to just say 'never forget 9/11'; I wish to say 'always remember'. We should always try to remember what happened on 9/11 and the honored dead; we should also always try to remember who committed the evil acts on 9/11, and what was behind these evil acts, in honor of those who were brutally taken away from society and their loved ones. In honor of the 'honored dead', we should remember 9/11 as a tragedy and a wake-up call, as well as retain or regain a fighting spirit to defend our freedom and our future. Let us try to also retain joy, happiness and dreams of a bright future in this difficult, often dreadful and depressing post-9/11 world, in honor of those who were violently deprived of every possibility of joy, happiness and dreaming of the future on 9/11.

Let us never forget and always remember 9/11, and let us honor the beloved dead not just with silence and with spoken or written words, but also with a sense of justice, a spirit of fighting and resistance and a joy of life.

May the honored and beloved dead, together with those who fought and died for our security, freedom and future, rest at the throne of the Most High.

Allow me to end with a quote by the Lebanese-American Christian poet Khalil Gibran:

"Life without liberty is like a body without spirit. Life without love is like a tree without blossoms or fruit."

Ladies and gentlemen, we have now come to the end. I wish you the very best, and I sincerely thank you for your attention.

Geen opmerkingen:

Een reactie posten