Not Squatters, but Claiming the World for Themselves

Why is it that Muslims pray in the public streets?

Public prayer in New York City


Public prayer in Washington, D.C.


Public prayer in Moscow


Public prayer in Rome


Public prayer in Paris


Public prayer in London


Public prayer in Milan

It is a mistake to think that this is merely some public display of personal faith, some sort of peaceable assembly, some sort of peaceful protest. No. To think that way is to think in Western categories. It is to interpret what is being done as if the Muslims are thinking within the context of Western culture. They are not.

Muslim prayer in public streets is an exercise of power. It is a claim that the streets are theirs. It is a claim that the earth was made for Muhammad and for his followers, and not for you. The prayer is an act of incipient violence. It is a threat to all that your way of life and all you believe. It is an act of political revolt, of the coming revolution. It is an insult to you, kaffir and mushrikun, you Western infidels, though you may not know it. They are calling you a pig and and ape, and you sit there tolerantly smiling.

The muslims do not see themselves as "squatters." It is you that have been squatting on their land. And they are putting you on notice that they are reclaiming it.

One need only turn to Sahih al-Bukhari (1.335) wherein Muhammad says that one of the things that Allah gave him was ownership of the world:

The Prophet said, "I have been given five (things) which were not given to anyone else before me. . . .

2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for offering Salat (prayer) and a thing to purify (perform Tayammum), therefore anyone of my followers can offer Salat wherever he is, at the time of a Salat.

You are a fool if you understand what the Muslims are doing through your frame of reference. By allowing such public displays of prayer you are conceding to the Muslim his ownership of the world. You are, in fact, consenting to, assenting to, accepting the position of dhimmitude. You are cowering before someone to whom you ought not to cower: the false prophet and madman Muhammad and his plethora of deceived followers.

Christ v. Muhammad: Who Used Words to Grab Power?

According to the post-modernist, all words are nothing than a "grab for power by the writer or speaker." In her book The World Turned Upside Down, Melanie Phillips observes with respect to the postmodernists:

[P]ostmodern theorists such as Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault and Jean-Francois Lyotard maintained that words had no actual meaning than as a grab for power by the writer or speaker.*

While I certainly would not place myself in the camp of a postmodernist, there is a certain truth in this observation. Words, it would seem, can be a vehicle for exercising power. We see words thus used by advertisers and marketers, by politicians, by the news media, by the self-ordained censors of political correctness. Words of hate are means to assault. Fighting words cause violence as sure as the strike of a fist.

The Temptation of Christ by Duccio di Buoninsegna (1260–1318)

We might compare the post-modernist suggestion with two speakers: Christ, and his words in the New Testament, and Muhammad, and his words in the Qur'an (add the ahadith if you wish).

Christ's words were not a "grab for power." If so, they were, at least from a worldly power point of view, eminently unsuccessful, for they led to his passion, death, and crucifixion. Christ's rejection of the blandishments of power in the third of his temptations (cf. Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-13) is the early Church's witness to this characteristic of Christ.

On the other hand, Muhammad's words are without doubt a "grab for power," and an imminently successful one at that.

It would seem that if a claimed prophet's motives are a "grab for power," then the divine warrant of his words are undermined; whereas, if there is no such conflict of interest, and the claimed prophet's words are not a "grab for power," then the message may have some divine warrant. For the message has to go beyond the mouthpiece (and his grab for power) to be attributable to the Other.

Muhammad in this regard fails. His Qur'an is nothing but a "grab for power." Those words of his claimed authentic in the ahadith are nothing but a "grab for power." All the words thereafter by the Muslim ulema is, like their master's words, a "grab for power."

Islam is nothing but a "grab for power."

_____________________________________
*Melanie Phillips, The World Turned Upside Down (London: Encounter Books, 2010), 274.

The Most Irrational Thing in Islam

Muslims are, unless prevented by certain limitations, to undertake the pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lifetime, in imitation of Muhammad. The pilgrimage consists of pagan rights that have been appended, without any real thinking, into the rites of Islam. They consist of running from one hill to another, walking around the Ka'ba seven times, throwing stones to scare the devil, drinking water from the Zamzam fountain, and animal sacrifice. The reason behind these strange pagan rites has been lost in time. Nevertheless, Muhammad adopted them wholesale, jettisoning only the polytheistic beliefs that they enshrined. The whole thing is arbitrary and irrational. Stupid, in fact, because it has no reason other than that Muhammad did it and commanded it.

Indeed, famous Muslim theologian Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali* wrote in the Ihya'ul ulum al-din, the "Revival of Religious Sciences", frequently considered his greatest work: "The pilgrimage (hajj) is the most irrational thing in Islam. There we perform gestures and rites that are absolutely irrational."** He suggested that complying with these irrational rites was indicative of raw, naked faith. I say that compliance with these rites is indicative of raw, naked stupidity, since it requires faith in Muhammad, faith which is irrational given his life and his message and their unreasonableness.

The Map of Rites of Pilgrimage

Hundreds of Thousands of Irrational Men and Women

_______________________________________
*ابو حامد محمد ابن محمد الغزالی
**Vol. 1, bk. 7, chap. 3, sec. 2 (Cairo: 1939), 272 ff, and (Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-'ilmiyya, 1992), 315, quoted in Samir Khalil Samir, S.J., 111 Questions on Islam (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2008), 179-80.

Friendship, Politics, and Islam

The West has inherited its political ideas from numerous sources, one of which is Aristotle. Indeed, Aristotle's books of public right, namely his Nicomachean Ethics and his Politics, were part of the Jeffersonian inspiration behind the Declaration of Independence. So much he admitted in his letter to Richard Henry Lee of May 8, 1825.

Now for Aristotle, friendship was both an important individual trait as well as a public trait. The happiness for the individual, that is, his end, Aristotle insisted, is the same as that of the polis. Indeed, Aristotle conceives of the citizens of a polis as a body or network of friends, or, perhaps more accurately, of a network of groups of friends, friends who share a common life, friends in which there is no opposition, but rather a commonality of interests. This has to be so since a friend is "another self." In the polity, there "arise . . . family connexions, brotherhoods, common sacrifices, amusements which draw men together. But these are created by friendship, for the will to live together is friendship. The end of the state is the good life, and these are the means to it." Politics 1280b35. Friendship and justice are all tied to a community: "To the same extent that a community exists, friendship also exists, and likewise justice." Politics, 1159b29-31; and 1160a7-8. Some degree of friendship must exist for there to be justice. Id. Friends are a practical necessity, since man being neither a god nor a beast, but a "political creature and one whose nature is to live with others." NE, 1169b18; Politics 1253a2. So important is friendship in the Aristotelian schema, that he views the end of political activity as not being the production of external goods (wealth, income), or power, or other mundane ends. Rather, the end of political activity, and therefore law, is to enable citizens to live a life of leisure, a life of leisure together as friends, sharing together in activity which is intrinsically and authentically worthwhile.

Friendships reduce disputes and reduce friction, since when citizens are friends, they act disinterestedly toward each other: the opposition and pettiness frequently found in the disputes between "mine" and "thine" is overcome. That is why legislators appear to care more about friendship than about justice, since "when men are friends they have no need of justice." N.E., 1155a26.

Now, assuming that friendship places an important role in civil and political society, what are we to do with Muslims? A Muslim would seem to automatically exclude himself from the category of good citizen since he excludes himself from the category of friendship. A pious, believing Muslim is sworn to be any non-Muslim's enemy, is sworn not to be a non-Muslim's friend. How can the Muslim be invited to be part of the polity, how can he be a good citizen, when his very constitution--the Qur'an and the Sunna--prohibit the very thing needful and precious to a common life?*

What does the Qur'an say?

O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people; they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear to you, if you will understand. Qur'an 3:118.

O ye who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves? Qur'an 4:144.

O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust. Qur'an 5:51

O Ye who believe! Choose not for guardians such of those who received the Scripture before you, and of the disbelievers, as make a jest and sport of your religion. But keep your duty to Allah if ye are true believers. Qur'an 5:57.

There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: "We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever,- unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone": But not when Abraham said to his father: "I will pray for forgiveness for thee, though I have no power (to get) aught on thy behalf from Allah." (They prayed): "Our Lord! in Thee do we trust, and to Thee do we turn in repentance: to Thee is (our) Final Goal. Qur'an 60:4

O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers. Qur'an 9:23.

You shall not find a people who believe in Allah and the latter day befriending those who act in opposition to Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their (own) fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their kinsfolk; these are they into whose hearts He has impressed faith, and whom He has strengthened with an inspiration from Him: and He will cause them to enter gardens beneath which rivers flow, abiding therein; Allah is well-pleased with them and they are well-pleased with Him these are Allah's party: now surely the party of Allah are the successful ones. Qur'an 58:22.

The Ahadith provide no more comfort, and confirm the harsh instructions of the Qur'an. Muhammad had no friends among non-Muslims, and a Muslim is to imitate Muhammad in all things.

'Amr b. 'As reported: I heard it from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) quite audibly and not secretly: Behold! the posterity of my fathers, that is, so and so, are not my friends. Verily Allah and the pious believers are my friends. Sahih Muslim 1:417.

Narrated AbuSa'id al-Khudri: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Associate only with a believer, and let only a God-fearing man eat your meals.

Abu Dawud 41:4814; see also Abu Dawud 41:4832

"O you who believe! Take not my enemies And your enemies as friends offering them (Your) love even though they have disbelieved in that Truth (i.e. Allah, Prophet Muhammad and this Quran) which has come to you." Sahih Bukhari 59:572:1

Muslim scholars echo the instructions of the Qur'an and the acts of Muhammad. For example, we have Ibn Kathir:

Allah forbids His believing servants from having Jews and Christians as friends, because they are the enemies of Islam and its people, may Allah curse them. Allah then states that they are friends of each other and He gives a warning threat to those who do this.

Allah prohibited His believing servants from becoming supporters of the disbelievers, or to take them as comrades with whom they develop friendships, rather than the believers.

. . .

Allah said next, (unless you indeed fear a danger from them) meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them." Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection."

Ibn Taymiyah has the following to say about Muslim friendship with non-Muslims:

“Imitation generates friendship and love, and regarding them as allies in the inside, just as loving them on the inside generates imitating them on the outside.” Allah tells us that there is no (true) believer who takes a kafir as a friend, for whoever takes a kaafir as friend is not a believer. Imitation on the outside implies that a person loves (the one whom he imitates), and so it is forbidden.”

We could go on, but you get the point.

It would seem, then, that Muslims--who are taught not to befriend non-Muslims--are, if Aristotle's concepts are to be believed, never to expected to be good citizens of any polity made up to any extent by non-Muslims.

_______________________________

Source: WikiIslam: Qur'an, Hadith, and Scholars: Friendship with Non-Muslims.

Islam's Double Standard

Question: If this sign were found anywhere in America, say, somewhere in New York City, telling Muslims that they (or their mosques) were not wanted in the roundabouts of the 9/11 Memorial & Museum, would there be an outcry?

Why is there no outcry when Saudi Arabia does the same thing?

Moral dualism? Double standard?

The Common Basis of Islam and Liberalism: Reason Can't Be Trusted

There is a shared assumption between the Liberal Order and the Islamic Order: their common distrust of reason's ability to grasp the truth, especially in the moral realm. Hence both the Liberal Order and the Islamic Order reject reason as hopelessly leading to moral relativism. In response, one imposes the Liberal Order as the solution, and the other imposes an Islamic Order. In one we suffer the tyranny of relativism foisted upon us by the likes of the "prophet" of Liberalism, John Rawls. In the other, we suffer the tyranny of a supposed divine positivism of the "prophet" of Islam, really nothing other than just the personal judgments and foibles of a crafty 7th century Arab moral and theological simpleton, one whom, in the British bioethicist Jonathan Glover's words might be characterized as a "monster of self-confidence."

Rawls and Muhammad: Both Despaired of Reason

Consider this. Let us suppose that J. Budziszewski's* summary of the liberal mind is accurate:

The argument [of the liberal or relativist, one who rejects reason as a source of law, that is the natural law] seems to be "Because we don't agree with each other, you must do as I say"--for, if anyone should profess "But your opinion is just as controversial as the ones you complain about," they respond "See what I mean?" Or perhaps, like John Rawls, they respond that their opinion should have special privileges because it is "political not metaphysical." Here the argument seems to be "The ultimate truth of things is unknowable [by reason], and that's why you must do as I say."

Now, let us suppose also that Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri accurately summarizes the Islamic view of things in his book Reliance of the Traveler:**

[M]inds are in obvious disagreement about acts. Some minds finds certain acts good, others find them bad. Moreover, one person can be of two minds about one and the same action. Caprice often wins out over the intellect, and considering something good or bad comes to be based on mere whim. So it cannot be said that an act which the mind deems good is therefore good . . . its performance called for and its doer rewarded . . . or whatever the mind feels to be bad is thus bad . . . its nonperformance called for and its doer punished . . . . [So] the basic premise [of Islam according to the Ash'aris] is that the good of the acts of those morally responsible is what the Lawgiver [Allah] or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) has indicated is good be permitting it or asking ti be done. And the bad is what the Lawgiver [Allah through his prophet Muhammad] has indicated is bad by asking it not be done.

The liberal despairs of human reason, and he imposes his tyranny of relativism. The Muslim despairs of human reason, and he imposes the tyranny of Islam. In their foundational assumptions and distrust of reason, Liberalism and Islam are brothers? That would appear to be the case.

Might the solution to the ills of Liberalism and the ills of Islam be a re-commitment to human reason in its theoretical and its practical (moral) range? Might our re-commitment to the link between human reason and the divine Reason, that is, the Logos, the Word of God, be the solution to the ills of Liberalism and the ills of Islam? Taking it one step further: might that re-commitment to human reason, to the link between human reason and the divine Logos lead us to a re-commitment to the belief that perhaps that Logos became incarnate and dwelt among us full of grace and truth, in the God-Man Jesus? And might that belief, that faith, lead to the re-commitment that perhaps that Logos made flesh, the incarnated Logos, founded his Church on Peter and that it continues in his successors? Might a rejection of the despair of human reason, and a re-commitment to this chain--faith in reason, faith in Reason, faith in the Reason made Flesh, faith in the Reason made Flesh founding a Communion, that is to say, the Church, be the means to overcome the ills of Liberalism and the ills of Islam? For both Liberalism and Islam start with infidelity: they are unfaithful to reason, which means they are unfaithful to Reason, which means they are unfaithful to the Logos made flesh, which means they are unfaithful to His Communion, a Communion which ultimately extends from this world into eternity, from the world into Paradise.

____________________________________
*J. Budziszewski, What We Can't Not Know (Dallas: Spence Publishing, 2003), 52.
**Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller (Nuh Ha Mim Keller, trans.) (Betlsville, Maryland: Amana Publishers, 1994), 2 (section a1.3, a1.4).

the (Non)Difference Between Muhammad and Eric Harris

I'm confused. I hope somebody can help me. I can't figure out what the difference is between Eric Harris (1981-1999, of Columbine infamy), who put on his website, "My belief is that if I say something, it goes. I am the law, if you don't like it, you die" . . . .

Eric Harris

. . . and Muhammad, who said in his Qur'an that (and I paraphrase) "my belief is that if I say something, it goes. I am the law, if you don't like it, you die."

. . . Well, other than the fact that pictures of Eric Harris are easier to find on Google than pictures of Muhammad, is there anything else?