mosque

Islam is Not the Problem

Islam is schizophrenic. It seems to preach both peace and violence. Alex Charles over at Alternative Right has a pretty good article explaining Islam’s two-facedness. His main point is that the seemingly peaceful aspects of Islam derive from Muhammad’s preaching at Mecca, and the violent aspects are from his time in Medina, when he acted as a political leader.

The thesis is generally true, but the argumentation is terrible. The fault lies with Mr. Charles’ main source–Bill French alias Warner, a real Zio-shill if there ever was one. While I am a fan of Mr. Charles’ other work, following Warner undermines this article’s whole argument.

Islam is not the problem. Diversity is.

Warner, the pseudo-intellectual Zio-shill

Let’s start with the source. Warner is a physicist who runs the Islamo-critical site Political Islam. He has no grounding in the humanities and it shows. His method of examining Islam is to statistically analyze what he considers the religion’s three sacred texts (“the trilogy”). He claims these are the Quran, the Hadith and “the sira,” which he calls the biography of Muhammad.

Right here we have a fuck up. There is no “trilogy” in Islam. The Quran is the ever-existing word of God, and the hadiths are the oral traditions reported about the life and sayings of Muhammad. Al-Bukhari is considered the authoritative collection of Hadith. “The Sira,” by which Warner presumably means the Sirat Rasuul Ullah of Ibn Ishaq, matters only insofar as it is a source of hadiths.

But the real problem is that Warner’s “statistical” analysis is a joke. He breaks the Quran into arbitrarily determined segments, looks for any occurrence of “kafir,” “Jew,” “Christian” or “Pagan,” or any phrase he thinks may be an allusion to any of the aforementioned, and counts that segment as “about infidels.” Based on this “method” he counts 64% of the Quran is about infidels. This is kind of true, in the way that “men think about sex every seven seconds” is true.   

Mr. Charles repeats another one of Warner’s main claims–that Islam has killed 270 million people. If we are going to be serious, the reasoning behind this figure is laughable. We can’t agree on how many Jews died (or didn’t) in the Holocaust–a mere 70 years ago in document-saturated Europe. How do can you accept a kill-count extrapolated from estimates of slaves taken in Africa 3 or 4 centuries ago? This is pure speculation.

And besides, do you really think that, were it not for one schizo Arab, the last 1,400 years of Middle Eastern, Central Asian, Indian and South European history would have been bloodless?

Misquotes

Mr. Charles’ cites Warner several times on the Quran and hadith. Some of these are outright wrong. For example, Mr. Charles mis-cites Surah 33:60, the actual text of which reads:

If the hypocrites and those who have tainted hearts and the scandal-mongers of Madinah do not desist, We will rouse you against them, and their days in that city will be numbered. 

However Mr. Charles cites the verse mistakenly as:

They [Kafirs] will be cursed, and wherever they are found, they will be seized and murdered. It was Allah’s same practice with those who came before them, and you will find no change in Allah’s ways.

Which is actually the two verses 33:61-62. But the mistake is more than just a matter of numbering, verse 61 is mistranslated. It should be “Cursed, wherever they are found, they shall be seized and put to death without mercy.” Here “cursed” refers to the subject of verse 60, either “hypocrites (munfiquun)” or “those who spread rumors (murjifuun).”

“Hypocrites” usually means people who pretend to be Muslims but secretly are not. Although, given the reference to al-Madinah, “hypocrites and rumor-mongers” could well be a reference to the Jews. If this is the case, I’m not sure why this makes Muhammad a bad guy.

So the bracketed “Kafirs” in Warner’s quote is completely unfounded. Learn a classical language, dumbass.

Zio-shillery

Warner is affiliated with the organization “Center for the Study of Political Islam.” They clearly receive lavish funding, because they offer a whole curriculum–books, courses, you name it–of shitty Islamic criticism. Warner, based on the method described above, claims that 8.9% of “the trilogy” is devoted to Jews and 2.8% to Christians. For these reasons, I suspect the CSPL are Jew-shills, like many prominent American critics of Islam (the Gatestone Institute, Pamela Geller, David Horowitz echo echo).

None of this is to say that the Quran doesn’t incite Muslims to kill infidels in plenty of places. The general tone is quite unlike the New Testament.  “Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous” (9:123) is unambiguous. But while the Quran provides rhetorical cover for a lot of violence, it is rarely the cause.

Multikulti Kills

So now we get to the heart of the matter. Warner’s arguments (and Mr. Charles’ by extension) presuppose that multiculturalism is a good thing. As Mr. Charles remarks, “The sad truth is that a multicultural society cannot survive with Islam.”

Of course it can’t. Multiculturalism cannot survive whether the dominant group is Muslims, Christians, Marxists or the Habsburgs. Multikulti breeds conflict. “Diversity + Proximity = War” as CH puts it. “Islam started it” is the red-pill answer. Take the iron-pill. Blame diversity.

But for fun, let’s pretend multikulti were desireable. Does Islam destroy multikulti faster than other religio-political systems?

Compare Islam to Communism. As an example of how fast Islam roots out its competitors, Mr. Charles cites Turkey, where the Christian population fell from 100% in 1300 to 0% in 2010, an average decline of 14% per century. Islam looks pretty thorough. (never mind that Turkey certainly was not 100% Christian in 1300, the Hadji hordes broke Byzantine control and started coming in after 1071).

He also mentions Copts in Egypt and the Zoroastrians of Iran, who have been under the heel of Islam since the 7th century. But the Copts still comprise approximately 10% of the Egyptian population, a decline of only 6.5% per century. Certainly they have been relatively fortunate, as the Zoroastrians of Iran are down to 25,000–but then again, Zoroastrianism was never a particularly popular faith, even at the height of Persian power. It is also worth noting that other pre-Islamic religious groups survived into this century, including the Yazidis and Mandaiin (an ancient gnostic sect) in Iraq and many Maronite and Nestorian Christians in Lebanon and Syria.

If anything, it would seem that Islam is remarkably bad at imposing religious conformity.

Soviet Communism, on the other hand, was far more effective at suppressing religious belief and practice. Compare the rates of decline for the Copts and Anatolian Christians under Islam to the collapse in Christian adherence in Russia under Communism. By 1939-40 only about 1% of churches were still active (Hosking, 441).

Despite the loosening of restrictions after WWII and the church revival after 1991, even today, 13% of Russians are outright atheists, and church attendance is nowhere near its pre-revolutionary levels. A similar argument could be made about Western liberalism, which has had similarly (albeit less dramatic) deleterious effects on religious belief in the West.

The Jizz-ya

Another of Mr. Charles’ arguments regards Muslim treatment of non-Muslim subjects. He refers to the battle of Khaybar, after which Muhammad forced the defeated Jews to hand over half their property.

It seems pretty cucky to fault Muhammad for oppressing Jews. In fact, one of the main biographers of Muhammad, Malik ibn Anas, refused to believe the story because he claimed it was based reports from the sons of Jewish converts. Crypto-Jews whining about a Shoah? Who would have thought.

This appropriation is generally in keeping with what would become Muslim practice after conquering an enemy but it is not, as Mr. Charles mistakenly refers to it, the jizyah. The jizyah was typically 1 to 4 dinars (gold coins) a year on adult, able-bodied males.

While this was not a negligible amount, it is by no means crushing. Plenty of Jews (and Christians) flourished under Muslim rule. If the alt-right is going to start arguing that Islamic rule was outrageously oppressive, then we have to acknowledge that the Jews were treated unfairly. For anti-Semitic reasons I refuse to believe this.

Know Islam, Beat the Muzzies

So before you goyim start kvetching about “counter-signalling” let’s get something straight. We need to remove kebab. I arrived at this conclusion rationally after years of study. But the alt-right is not going to win the argument on Islam by screwing up our reasoning and mis-citing the Quran. By doing so, we make ourselves easy targets for the half-wits in academia.

We can beat these pseudo-intellectuals, but we have to tighten up our arguments. If you want to learn about Islam and the West, you can get good information if you know where to find it. Read books written in before WWII, read TE Lawrence. More recently, The Occidental Observer ran a great review of a new book that demolishes the multiculturalist exaggerations about Moorish Spain.

But stop listening to talmudic shills like Warner. There is an abundance of material with which to criticise Islam. Start using it. And remember who the real enemy is.

Further Reading

Dawood, N.J. The Koran. (translations in this article follow this version)

Hitti, Philip K. History of the Arabs.

Nicholson, R. A. Literary History of the Arabs.

Hosking, Geoffrey. Russia and the Russians.

 

3 thoughts on “Islam is Not the Problem”

  1. Interesting.

    I knew Warner was obviously from some silly Protestant faith and was likely subject to their prejudices but never thought he was a shill after I heard him mention the Jewish role in the slave trade in the periods he discusses.

    Could the mistakes you have identified be chalked up to innocent mistakes in the face of dealing with large amounts of data rather than malignant bias, AI?

    1. I probably went over the top in denouncing Warner as a Jew-shill…I’d be interested if you have a link on the slavery bit.

      I spent some time looking over his stuff and it was riddled with fabrications–more than could be excused as innocent mistakes. For instance his claim that: “The first step was realizing that the Islamic texts had been made deliberately difficult to read and comprehend.” The same could be said of Thomas Aquinas, The Talmud, Ancient Greek literature, or any arbitrarily selected corpus. Plenty of 19th century British and German orientalists managed to immerse themselves in Arabic literature and Islamic religious writings and came to pretty based conclusions. They did not whine about it being “made deliberately difficult.” They knew they were dealing with an alien culture.

      Another reason I think he isn’t just making innocent mistakes: he manages to screw up one of the most famous passages of the Quran, Surah 1, verse 4-7, which he cites as:

      “Only You do we worship, and to You alone do we ask for help. Keep us on the straight
      and narrow path. The path of those that You favor; not the path of those who anger You [the
      Jews] nor the path of those who go astray [the Christians]”

      (which he numbers 1:5. His numbering alone is so constantly jacked up, it’s as if all of his papers were thrown together by an intern). The bracketed insertions are also entirely unjustified. Maybe some scholar has argued that “those who anger you…or who go astray (ghair al-maghduubi ‘alayhim walaa l-daaliin)” is code for “Christians and Jews” but I have never seen that argument made. And Warner certainly provided no citations.

      1. You know far more about his work than I do so I’ll defer to your judgement regarding Islamic texts.

        His reference to the Jewish role in the slave trade is in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y

        I’ve shared it many times because I never really understood just how aggressive Islam had been from its inception.

        Not sure of the exact time he mentions it – of course he adds the caveat ‘everyone comes off badly’ – but he definitely does.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *