Tuesday, August 03, 2010

Religion of Peace

Words are tricky things. Virtually every tyrant, no matter how bloody, has talked about his plans for conquest in terms of "peace". For example in 1939, Nazi Germany and the USSR signed a declaration in which they described their conquest of Poland as creating "a sure foundation for a lasting peace in Eastern Europe". The same year that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he delivered a speech at the Amman Summit in which he insisted that; "the Arabs seek peace and justice throughout the world". And how can one argue with peace?

The Romans had the Pax Romana, which meant peace under Roman dominion. The "peace" that Hitler, Stalin and Saddam have in mind, was of that same nature. Dictators and tyrannies, national or ideological, frame the world as chaotic and requiring order. Only under their leadership and only their way will the world finally experience peace.

When Lenin stated that; "without overthrowing capital it is impossible to end the war by a truly democratic peace", he was laying out the same basic thesis of every tyrant, and of Islam as well. That there can be no "true peace", without the creation of a society that follows his ideology. For Lenin, everyone had to submit to Communism. For Hitler, to Nazism. For Mohammed, to Islam. Each spoke about peace, but they defined peace only in terms of their own ideology and rule.

When apologists insist that Islam is a religion of peace, they are correct. Insofar as it believes in peace through conquest, and its intended state of peace is to reduce non-Muslims to second class status. But since Islam is global and it recognizes no limit to its borders-- its form of "peace" is to engage in constant wars to conquer the territory of non-Muslims and Muslims whose legitimacy they do not recognize in order to achieve "peace".

Islam's peace has as much in common with what most people think of as peace, as Hitler and Stalin's assurance that they had laid a foundation for a lasting peace, by conquering Poland does with reality. Islam's peace, like Hitler's peace, was and is an expression of a Will to Power, a belief that the world would not be right without Mohammed or Adolf, or their followers running it.

Where most people define peace as the absence of war, Islam sees war as the means of creating peace. The Pax Islamica covering the globe is the aim of the Jihad. And so the Pre-Orwellian doubletalk of Islam turns war into peace, and violence into mercy-- so long as they are practiced by Muslims, and against non-Muslims. Muslims may kill, but they cannot be killers. Muslims may terrorize, but they cannot be terrorists. They may commit genocide, but they are only the better for doing it. Because their object is always "peace".

In this way the Islamic system turns black into white, and white into black. Nations that try to defend themselves against Islamic terror are the real villains because they are obstructing peace. And the terrorists themselves only want peace, which can only come about when their victims accept their authority. Much the same way as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union laid that "lasting foundation for peace" by ending the threat from Poland.

When Westerners talk about peace, and Muslims talk about peace, they may use the same translated English word, but they mean different things. To Westerners, peace does not depend on any ideology. To Muslims however, peace is indivisible from Islam. Just as in Russian, Mir meant both "peace" and "world", resulting in an ironic interpretation of any pronouncements on peace by the USSR, in Arabic the linkage between Islam and Salaam creates its own linguistic complications.

Aslim, Taslim was the message that Mohammed sent to non-Muslim rulers, literally meaning, "Submit and you will be well". Since then that message has been sent by Muslim leaders, political and religious, to Western leaders. The multiple meanings of "Peace", "Submission", "Wholeness" and "Security" connecting to the name of the religion itself, play on the ambiguity of ideas. Peace becomes surrender. Islam becomes safety. And security means submission.

For Westerners peace can exist apart from religion, for Muslims, peace is a theological state, rather than a political one. A political peace will never be considered by Muslims as anything but a temporary truce to gain strategic advantage. A true peace must be theological, in that non-Muslims must concede the superiority of Islamic law and the Koran. To achieve "wholeness" with the Dar-Al-Islam, one must first submit to it. Aslim, Taslim.

Western apologists for Islam highlight that Islam is a "Religion of Peace." The implication is that Islam preaches peace, when in reality Muslims see peace as existing only within the context of Islam. This theology of Pax Islamica makes any notion of peaceful co-existence into an absurd joke, because it defines peace only in terms of itself, and treats everyone else as wayward heretics who must be suppressed and made obedient to Islam.

Islam is certainly not peaceful. It just claims to be the only means through which peace can be achieved. And it sees no paradox in using war to achieve that peace. No more than Lenin did, when he denounced pacifists for giving up the struggle against the capitalists who were the real cause of war. So too Muslims see non-Muslims as the cause of war. A Muslim may be a Jihadist, but that only means that he is fighting for peace. Much like the Red Brigades. And so Muslims incorporate their means into their ends. Murder becomes a peaceful act, much like the religion which commands it.

Any mention of the Religion of Peace should only remind us that Islam views even peace as a Zero-Sum Game, in which only Muslims and to those who submit to them may be at peace. While everyone else remains a source of war and conflict. When Israelis try to show their good faith by singing "Shalom, Salaam", they only make a laughingstock of themselves, because though the words may be similar, the ideas are not. And non-Muslims who speak of peace are treated as either signaling submission or a temporary truce. Since a non-Muslim country cannot be allowed to exist in the Dar-Al-Islam, just as a synagogue was not allowed to be taller than a mosque, Israel can never achieve a peace that Muslims will recognize. Only temporary truces, if even that.

As the Caliphate goes global, this will begin to hold true not only for countries such as Israel or India, who cannot win true peace on any terms, but for every country, no matter how much it is eager to appease. Truces will expire and war will come in their place.

The hysterical violence of terrorism is the response of Muslims who identify their personal honor with that of Islam as a whole. It is the intersection of the tribal and the theological, the same family honor that causes fathers to kill their daughters, is behind the suicide bombings in the name of the Jihad. A non-Muslim who is in any way better than a Muslim, dishonors him individually. A country of infidels superior to Muslim countries dishonors all of Islam. A Muslim leader who makes a deal with an infidel, dishonors Islam, and is murdered for it. A Muslim country that lives in peace with infidels, will have terrorists rise up to try and overthrow it.

The two faces of Islam, the violence and that distant peace which never arrives, mark the border between its actuality and its mythology. Much as the USSR insisted on the misery and deprivation of workers, so that they may one day live under true Communism-- Islam cultivates violence in the name of a peace that will never come. Because the underlying dirty secret of Islam is that it has been nothing more than a tool for conquest, robbery, rape and murder from the very beginning. From Mohammed to the present day, the leaders of Islam are men who want power. Islam is their means of getting it. Just as Nazism and Communism were for others. Islam is an ideology of power that can only imagine peace in terms of conquest.

"Give me your money and no one gets hurt," the mugger says. He's expressing the same basic idea. He's promising peace in exchange for cooperation. Mohammed's agreements with non-Muslims were of the same variety of peace. But where the mugger robs and leaves, Mohammed instead created permanent systems of obligated, which required non-Muslims to become Dhimmis, to pay protection money to Muslims, and which made him the final arbiter of all arguments. Eventually despite any agreements, Mohammed wound up killing, enslaving and expelling the remainder of the non-Muslims in the area. Thus was the first Dar Al Islam born.


Tracy W said...

Excellent summary of Islam's version of peace.

However it must be also said that the Pax Islamica could never happen in practice because Islam itself is deeply and violently divided.

Imagine the whole world under Islam for a moment, Shiites and Sunnis face to face with nukes and other WMDs.

KABOOM!!! No more planet Earth.

But these days it's not only Islam that misuses the word PEACE to suit their purposes.

The US and EU pursue PEACE in the Middle East by making diplomatic war against Israel telling it to make "peace" OR ELSE. This way setting up the conditions for a future war of attrition against a shrunk Israel that would escalate into a major regional conflagration.

That of course unless the Usual Suspects are in government at the time (Likud, Kadima, Labor and others) because they'd sign the capitulation papers in no time - under "pressure" of course.

And on the other hand the US and EU pursue a WAR on terror by tolerating nightly Islamic tantrums in Paris, calls for Jihad from western mosques, a separate compound in Islamberg NY, and much, much more. All the while importing hundreds of thousands of the same kind of people to live right next door to them. In the name of diversity. Go figure!


15771 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11.


More on the US War on Terror: The proposed mosque two blocks from Ground Zero in NYC is the SECOND Islamic memorial on 9/11 grounds. The first one was the Islam crescent-shaped memorial to Flight 93 - the so-called Crescent of Embrace.

Anonymous said...

Aah, the religion of peace. I look as though I am repeating Tracey here, but my purpose is to draw your attention to a Caliphate where there are no non-Muslims. Feel the peace and love, and there's supposed to be lots of it now there are no nasty kuffr.

Yes, we are in hudna and no amount of pandering to Islam will bring peace.

There are what, 3% Muslims in USA AND UK, scratch that, I mean EU. Why build an insensitive mosque at the 9/11 site - why ignore all the obvious intolerance to our culture from Islam believers (carBQs), menacing behaviour, thuggery, murder &. towards us and their own when it is so superior a belief system, as we and our children are forced to believe.

Aah, so superior, then why is OHB, and our own govt. in Brussels using taxpayer's money to throw at educating those who are meant to be beyond our meagre intellectual capabilities? NASA is now training 3 Emirates, the woman must be very sore from her daily beatings for being in an enclosed capsule with 2 men she isn't related to........perhaps she's breastfed them to get around this problem (no, I haven't made this up, you just couldn't make this stuff up, could you?)

You can read where your money is going at Robert Spencer's Jihad watch, or here

In London there is/was an exhibition of 1000 Islamic inventions, invented despite Islam, not because of it, when curiosity is a thought crime, how can you possibly invent? These Muslim inventors often suffered hatred and violence from their own, a bit like Galileo with his totalitarian religious leaders who swore love and peace. Or you could spend a few hours going around the millions of non-Islamic inventions and then use the Thomas Crapper and soft paper.

And yesterday, the peaceful UN (OIC) knows the IDF have gone thru the proper channels for maintainance of the border fence at Lebanon, yet the media and camera crews just happen to be there to see the Lebanese declare war on Israel by killing a soldier and blaming IDF for digging up the tree causing the fence to sag. Peace, peace, peace. Like the peaceful love bombs in the form of Katyushas falling in Eilat from the religion of peace - they have names like Quassam, a Jihadist, and the latest 'Arafat'.

If you didn't know about Lebanon, Eilat, please tell your MP EMP don't just blog.


mike elmore said...

When everyone else is saying islam is not a religion of peace and from the devil, you defined what makes it the religion of peace and then attack it on those merits. Outstanding article and a more logical way of condemning the religion on peace than quoting hateful suras just from the koran and condemning just radical islam. Thanks once again for your enlightenment. elmore

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...


indeed. A Caliphate would fall apart into infighting long beforehand, because Islam is ideology meant to bridge tribalism, but never breaks free of it.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...


just masters and slaves

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...


thanks that's what I set out to do

Jesterhead45 said...

Tracy W - "Imagine the whole world under Islam for a moment, Shiites and Sunnis face to face with nukes and other WMDs.

KABOOM!!! No more planet Earth."

Fwiw, I've always (heaven forbid) imagined that scenario being darker, more depressing & drawn out when it comes to the ummah's self-cannibalising, along the lines of the following in descending order.

- An inter-islamic civil war like you're mentioned with sect (Sunni) vs (Shia) sect vs (Sufi) vs etc...

- An inter-islamic war of caliphates / nations, until one is eventually left standing.

- An inter-islamic civil war of the races with Arabs vs Turks vs Persians vs etc... until race is left standing or is dominant.

At some point the earth looks as barren as Arrakis.

- An inter-islamic tribal war until one tribe is left standing (the effects of islamic inbreeding would probably be more evident at this point).

- An inter-islamic family war, a man's enemies live within his own home until no ones left.

If the stakes were not so high, I could laugh and say the above would make a good sci-fi horror film.

Even though its not saying much, I've thankful that the extent of islams inventiveness for the most part ends at turning a pencil into a stabbing weapon or the buzzing preyer rug, I would hate to think what would happen is islam were truly creative beyond appropriation or deceit.

Just think for minute how islam would make use of say an artificial womb for example, given their belief that women are a curse whose destination is hell.

They would probably do away with women-kind completely.

Anonymous said...

Since the UK appears to be on the front line of, let us say, an Eastern-Western "convivencia," borrowing the phrase from the Golden Age of Spain, can someone please advise what is the demeanor of the average Briton (if there be such a thing)to this cultural mix? And secondly, why would anti-Semitic energy be directed toward benign, kippa-wearing Jews when when a far less-benign other presents itself?


DP111 said...

Pakistan - Sunni country with nuclear weapons. Also subservient to Saudi Arabia

Iran - the only shia majority country, desperate to get ho;ld of nukes.

The hidden imam will appear from a mushroom cloud.

Tracy W said...


Not bad, not bad at all! Good imagination at work there! :-)

But don't get me started because I also have a big imagination along those same lines, and it does not take much to get me going. To back me up I have a big collection of disaster DVDs and and lots of geology, ecology and other science books telling me more or less that WE'RE DOOMED!!!

First of all, from the point of view of overpopulation, accelerated development by Asia and other places, and out-of-control consumption of resources - the whole thing is just NOT SUSTAINABLE.

ADD TO THAT: Climate change. Because our climate is changing. It has been in a process of change for 4.5 billion years. There's no argument about that. Our planet has gone through extreme and sometime abrupt changes in the past and we should expect nothing less in the future.

Now, picture this: a bunch of quarrelsome, murderous and not-too-bright species consuming everything, polluting everything, and never - ever - getting along.

What happens when there is scarcity of foodstuffs and other resources? When harsh climate and geological upheaval produce better and bigger disasters? When harvests fail? When millions are homeless, hungry, and desperate? Chaos and unimaginable brutality.


The bad news is that the so-called civilized humans are in a minority and passively watching their countries being overtaken by invading hordes. And now they don't even have a monopoly of high-tech weapons anymore.

If Islam can intimidate a giant like the USA into cultural submission in spite of attacking its financial heart and murdering over 3000 Americans, then I don't discount the possibility that we'll be rendered helpless in a not too distant future.

9/11 and Katrina - and now the Gulf disaster - should have awakened every American to the fact that the US government is ran by incompetent wimps vulnerable to corruption. (Bush-Saudi connection and now Mr Obama. Enough said.)

So, WE ARE ON OUR OWN. Whatever we do now, we're just delaying the inevitable unless good sense and effective action overcomes self-delusion and apathy.


The rapid pace of technical and scientific "progress" is indeed scary, no matter who gets his hands on it. Much is being conducted in secret and with private funds. It's chilling. It's frightening. Tinfoil hats won't do us much good. :-))


Anyway, if Islam, nuclear war or Frankenscience doesn't get us, some natural disaster will. It does not have to be an giant asteroid. We have a ticking bomb right here. Yesss! The Yellowstone Supervolcano.

Yellowstone has been on a regular eruption cycle of 600,000 years but the last eruption was over 640,000 years ago, so the next one is overdue. An eruption at Yellowstone could be 2,500 times the size of the 1980 Mount St. Helens event and would demolish much of North America and wreak havoc with climate and the biosphere all over the world.

Yellowstone supervolcano activity has been picking up in the last few years. A swarm of 500 earthquakes hit the park early in 2009 and geologists found that the entire park is being pushed up into the air by hidden forces under the ground. (I'm watching the How The Earth Was Made DVD collection, so I'm really into this now.)

Have a nice day everyone!

Anonymous said...

Guess what about the Ground Zero Mosque.

New York's senior senator will see to it that it receives seed money from Congress, a grant of $250 million dollars as soon as things cool down as the politicians expect. For now it is talk.

Tracy W said...



Scenes from the 21st International Conference on Islamic Unity - 2010

Jesterhead45 said...

Tracy W

To be fair, in spite of my imagination I see things ultimately turning out for the best. I just find it somewhat interesting to take islam or western enviro-socialism (aka Gaianism) to its logical conclusion if they did (heaven forbid) manage to win. Then envisioning how both groups would apply future tech if they were savvy enough, based on their own doctrines / cultural self-image / etc.

I personally do not have a problem with future tech or Transhumanism in theory, it is just that human nature is pretty much guaranteed to give it a bad reputation. In a way, I am actually disappointed that these days we have two anti-human movements holding humanity back from achieving let alone bringing about that bright positive future we were all promised by enslaving the mind / body / soul of billions.

One could say that at this time, the neutral “fence” that formerly seperated good and bad has all but dissappeared leaving those unprincipled “fence-sitters” little choice but to choose a side, which is ultimately a good thing.

That, as well as the fact that recently over the past few years I've noticed that many people / movements / etc we all once respected, turn out in the end to have been unworthy of that respect once their actions came to light.

There is no doubt that we are heading into dark times though when you think about it, in the end I believe things will be all the better for it, to the point where we won’t miss things as they currently are at the moment.

Anyway going back on topic, I have always found it amusing that the idea of "peace" for many religious or political systems is based proving their own legitimacy by attempting to humiliate / degrade / destroy the Jewish people in one form or another.

Anonymous said...

while listening to 'talk radio' the M.C. quoted a thought he attributed to the well known Islamic scholar, Bernard Lewis.

If the issue in the ME was one of land then it is possible to come to an agreement. However, if it was about religion it can never be solved.

As you clearly point out, the Arab/Israeli conflict is viewed by the Arabs as a religious issue. Since Israeli leadership, as well as much of the western world, respond on the basis of territory, they constantly make dangerous choices. One cannot respond to theology with appeasement. All religions, like bullies, will take gifts, but will never be satisfied. Religion is modified only by defeat, either internal or external.

Hal Spengler said...

Pat Robertson is correct when he says that Islam is not a religion at all but an aggressive political movement bent on world domination.

Will48 said...

Akiva - because whom to hate is not a rational choice. That would be a choice of whom to feel more apprehensive about, based on facts. As we, the free people, should feel about Islam - or any other prozelytising totalitarian ideology claiming to hold the ultimate truth. Yet we shall not hate the Muslims, themselves victims of this deadly cult from their moment of birth.

We should feel compassion and mercy for them, trying to free their minds by constant stream of TRUTH broadcasted to them 24/7.

TRUTH shall make them free.

As for the Muslim-pandering Westerners - that's mostly about denial of dangerous reality and denial of fear, about clinging to their pink-tinted glasses they too get to wear from birth.

Islam's is the god of Power, Lust and the lust for power.

Christianity's was the god of eschatological defiance, turned into god of unconditional Love by the latter followers.

The God of Israel is the God of Truth, Justice and Life. That's the God any righteous atheist can believe in.

Sultan - the will is the tricky business. To win, we must have will, yet we must detest power over others. This can be resolved if we recognize the imperative of upholding these few ethical axioms as Core Moral Values of the Free World:

The Right to Think (and thus have full access to undistorted, unfiltered information)
Do No Harm
No Coercion

Any culture in violation of these has ultimately no right to exist and it is our DUTY to free its subjects from its grip. Explicating these ideals and elevating them to the sacred status will give us Will.

Will48 said...

Sultan - it IS important to understand your enemy from within. Cudos to you, sir! If the Germans thought their ideology was Evil they wouldn't have fought.

That IS the folly of today's West, used to pre-packaged fully-labeled pre-processed everything, unaccustomed to false-advertising.

Only by Thinking for ourselves and by ourselves, can we reclaim the Truth for ourselves. The problem with this, though, is that this is the rallying cry of the most group-thinking obtuse in-denial kind of leftist crowd in the West today, eager to believe any anti-Western propaganda just for the novelty of it.

What we should say to such persons is "good, you've made your first step. Don't stop, there's a long road ahead of you. Go on, you've much to discover for yourself. You may one day even find out that what you were so eager to denounce, is everything to be upheld and protected. Then you will have ended up were you started, only on a 'higher level'."

They luv this "higher level" stuff. :)

What I'm saying is we've got to reach out to the sane leftists, just as we've got to reach out to the anti-Jihad Muslims.

Will48 said...

Sultan - but there's NO paradox in using war to achieve peace. The only paradox is the pacifists' claim that war against an aggressive totalitarian force should not be fought, in order to achieve peace.

The real question is, are our evaluations consistent with Reality, as observed under our Core ethical axioms. Because Islam's are, under theirs. For them, Israel cutting a single tree down on its side of the border *is* an unbearable offense, and an aggression - under *their* value system.

But we get to Choose our value system. And we have to, choose, each man and woman for themselves. That's the only choice that counts.

Anonymous said...

Jesterhead45, I've always believed, myself, that it's just a matter of time until Islam finds a way to rid itself of evil, sinful womankind.

At which point, it will seek to cleanse the earth of Kuffir females everywhere.

Want some more scary sci-fi stuff? Islam isn't creative itself, but there will probably be just enough Dhimmi scientists and engineers, motivated by greed, self-hatred or whatever to give Islam the weaponry it wants.

Twilight Zone, anybody?


Post a Comment