Monday, July 07, 2008

Islam Through Muslim Eyws


The following article might be of some help in understanding what a Muslim is, and shed some light and insight into how the Muslim mind works.

A while back I wrote an article titled “Islam Through Christian Eyes”. It was to explain why it is so difficult for a Christian or a Westerner to comprehend Islam.

This essay hopefully will explain what, as well as why.

It is an in-depth study of why and how we came to tap dance around the truth and more importantly the result.

By de Andréa

Bear in Mind, that I am not trying to make the case, or to insinuate in any way, that the eyes or mind of a Muslim is structurally different than anyone else’s. The difference in the way the eyes see or the mind works is the programming. Yes just as in a computer or any other mechanism that receives input, what goes in, is what comes out. And as the old saying goes garbage in garbage out.

This is rather lengthy as well as having links to other sites to look up, so it will be number one on the site for about a week so take your time it is a must read, especially if you are confused as to what a Muslim is, moderate or otherwise.

The following, is a unique insight into the twisted mind and religion of a Muslim.
In the processes of attempting to comprehend the mind of a Muslim or more importantly what it means to be a Muslim, we all too often program ourselves or each other with faulty information, and as I said, garbage in garbage out, and it spreads like a virus, and does as much damage. This faulty programming is givin power by misidentification. Identifying aspects if Islam by giving them names, ignorant Western names as seen though Western eyes.

Let’s start with some of the many names, words, and phrases we use about Islam that are muddled and incorrect. Many non-Muslims, “Westerners” create certain terms about Islam to try to make the world seem safer and to feel good about themselves. But many of these terms have no actual basis in Islamic theology or culture and have no real meaning in an Islamic context.

I think the best way to start is to begin with the term “moderate Muslim."
“Moderate Muslim” is a perfect example of the muddle and incorrect terminology that the kuffaar or kafir use. (Kuffaar, or Kafir is a derogatory word for unbelievers or non Muslims)

This term “Moderate” is intended to describe a Muslim who doesn’t seem so dangerous or advocate violence. But “moderate Muslim” is not a Muslim term; it is one that kuffaars made up. The doctrine of Islam does talk about the different kinds of Muslims. The measure of a Muslim is the Quran the hadith and the Sunna. Anyone who follows these teachings is a Muslim, by definition.

Islamic doctrine defines what a so-called moderate is and is not. Since we are dealing with Islam, we need to know that the doctrine is progressive and teaches duality. . Islam can have two doctrines about any issue. The early part of the Quran, which was written in Mecca, beginning in about the year 610 AD, is generally religious. The part of the Quran written in Medina after Muhammad was driven out of Mecca, is very political and militant, and includes jihad. The two parts of the Quran are not only very different, but they also contradict each other in major ways. The Muslim rational for this is that the later part of the Quran supersedes the former part of the Quran in the case of conflict. Or even more confusing to the Western mind is that despite the contradiction, both can be simultaneously correct.

So without this cognizance we have the misunderstanding of two kinds of Muslims, since we have two doctrines, but as we shall see it is irrelevant. Osama bin Laden is a “moderate Muslim”, who specifically follows the Quran of Medina, the Koran of jihad. Kuffaars call him an extremist or radical Muslim. Actually, Osama obeys the Quran of Medina and the Sunna of Mohammed, so he is a moderate, pious Muslim of Medinan and not in the slightest bit, extreme...

The Jihadists on September 11, 2001 were all moderate Medinan Muslims. They were not extremists or radicals just Muslims doing what Muslims do.

The other kind of moderate Muslim claim to follow the Quran of Mecca and might be more generally what kuffaars mean when they say “moderate Muslim”. But how moderate is a Meccan Muslim? A Meccan Muslim thinks that you are a kuffaar, but he may or may not be violent enough to kill you even though he would support those that would, his roll in Islam will be just to support Jihad in any way he can. All are not called to be directly involved in violent/militant Jihad. But all Muslims are called to support the advancement of the Agenda of Islam which is to subjugate the world under Sharia law and to bow down to Allah the god of this earth.

So, for example, just what exactly is a “kuffaar” or sometimes spelled “kafir”. We take it to mean “unbeliever” but it is more complicated than that, remember this is how the mind of a Muslim works. The usual translation of this Arabic word is unbeliever as in the word Infidel, but unbeliever is only a very small part of the meaning of Kuffaar. It is the Quran that defines its meaning. The Quran says that the most terrible things can happen to the kafir. The Qu’ranic doctrine about “kafirs” or “kuffaars” says they are hated and are Satan’s friends. Kafirs can be robbed, tortured, raped, mocked, cursed, condemned, plotted against and murdered.
The “Koran” or “Quran” does not have one good thing to say about kafirs. (There are some pseudo-good words, but more about those later.) Over the last 1400 years, 270 million kafirs have died as a result of the so-called moderate political doctrine of Islam. It is the biggest single source of suffering in the history of the world. And you thought the Nazis were the worst. No my friend, Nazism is just a mild spin-off of the Islamic ideology.

The word “kafir” or “kuffaar” is the worst word in the human language. It is far worse than the n-word, for someone of the black race, because the n-word is a personal opinion, whereas, kafir is Allah’s decree. Nearly two thirds of the Koran is devoted to the vicious treatment of the kafir. Islam is fixated on the subjugation or the destruction of the kafir and the moderate Muslim believes that you are a kafir, and therefore must be hated, converted, be made slaves of, or killed. That is a so-called “Moderate Muslim’ my friend How moderate is that?

The moderation does not stop there. A moderate Muslim follows Islamic ethics. Not only is the Koran a dualistic or progressive document, but also Islamic ethics are dualistic and progressive. Islam has one set of rules for Muslims and another set of rules for the kafirs. A Muslim does not lie, cheat, kill, or harm another “real” Muslim, as you can see the emphases is on real. But, if it will advance the purpose and agenda of Islam, a kafir may be cheated, deceived, murdered, tortured, and raped. Or on the other hand, a Muslim may deceivingly (with the doctrine of Taqiya or Taqiyyah) treat a kafir like a brother.

It is this progressiveness and dualism of Islam that gives it such power. It has the entire good cop/bad cop psychology built into its very DNA. Islam deceivingly has the good cop face to the world most of the time. The bad cop is held in reserve the same way that a police detective carries a hidden weapon.

Muslim Charity
The ethical dualism means that Islam does not take part in the shared reciprocity of altruism. As an example, Islam is very big on charities, but Islamic charities only go to Muslims, and then not out of love and caring but as a sense of duty. When Saudi Arabia foe example, sent money to New Orleans after hurricane Katrina, the money only went to Muslims, not to suffering kafirs. Most Islamic charities however go to the Islamic cause or agenda of advancing Islam, that we call terrorists extremists organizations.

Reciprocity of altruism is the very basis of modern civilization. Islam does not share this trait. This is one of the reasons that Islam can not be a part of the rest of civilization. Islam is built on different ethics and logic than the kafirs. Islam’s dualistic ethics prohibit reciprocity of altruism. Islamic civilization and kafir civilization do not share the same values. This is why it is so difficult for the Judeao Christian West to understand The Nation of Islam

So a “moderate non-violent Muslim” thinks that you are a kafir and that a kafir is not to be treated the same as a Muslim. The moderate Muslim (Islamic meaning) believes that you are Allah’s scum and you can be treated like trash. How can such a person be a true friend, if he believes the Koran. In some 14 verses, the Koran says that the Muslim is not the friend of a kafir. In any case, the term moderate Muslim has two totally different meanings. The kafir meaning is warm, fuzzy, and incorrect. The Islamic meaning is cruel, precise and correct.

Some other false kafir names
Radical Islam, Muslim extremist, reformed Islam.
What is a radical Muslim? A radical Muslim is capable of harming kafirs. A radical Muslim is a Medinan Muslim, but a Medinan Muslim follows Mohammed’s actions. So killing kafirs is not radical. Harming kafirs follows Mohammed’s example and is pure Islam, not a radical interpretation.

So, overall, the real issue here is Islam, these false names used by kafirs are an attempt to humanize Islam. The kafirized naming of “Moderate Islam” tries to put the violence (radical, extremist) outside of Islam or suggest that violence is a bizarre interpretation of Islamic doctrine. But Mohammed himself defines moderation, and violence as integral to Islam.

The doctrine of both religious and political Islam is based on progressivism and dualism and submission. The religious doctrine is of no concern to a kafir. It is the politics that concerns kafirs. Political Islam is also based upon dualism and submission. All of humanity is divided into kafirs and Muslims, with not one good word for the kafirs.

Names like “moderate” and “good” are an attempt to link goodness with Islam. But there is no goodness in Islam for the kafir, not even for the Muslim, because even Muslims are deceived about their own religion and politics. This may seem extremely harsh, but it is a consequence of the doctrine of religious and political Islam.

If you are well-read in the Islamic political doctrine, you may jump in and say that the Korans says positive things about Christians and Jews but these are Taqiya or Taqiyyah’---Islamic deception (true lies). These few seemingly good things are a very few sentences. It is sad to see how Muslims and apologists drag the pitiful few sentences out of the Koran to attempt to show the good in Islam for the kafirs. First, compared to the massive amount of hateful, hurtful, and evil things said about the kafirs, the few good sentences are statistically insignificant and as I said they are a deception as is the whole Koran.
.
But worst of all is that the good verses are contradicted by later doctrine. This is another aspect of progressivism and dualism. The doctrine of Islam is not static since it is based upon the life of Mohammed. The doctrine describes a process. The conclusion of that process was annihilation of the native Arab culture with not a single enemy of Mohammed left standing. In the end, there is no good in Islam, none.

Most kafirs treat the doctrine of Islam like a box of those magnetic words you can put on the refrigerator. By choosing the right words, one can make any sentence and any thought. But the doctrine of Islam is a very progressive story. It has a beginning, middle and an end. Islamic doctrine is taken from the life of Mohammed, not from a dictionary of unrelated facts. The most important part of the Koran is its conclusion.

The conclusion is that Islam is always bad for the kafir. In the end, all kafirs, Christians and Jews must submit to Islam. this submition is what Muslims believe is the goodness of Islam for kafirs. As long as the kafirs submit to Islam’s demands, and pay the protection money (The Jiza) then Islam is good to them. It is called dhimmitude a subservient paid for protected people. Not unlike the protection rackets of the Sicilian Mafias of New York City and Chicago in the 1930’s, they like Hitler also read the Koran

Progressive dualism and deception is the key to understanding Islam.
On the surface many parts of the Koran contradict each other. The usual explanation is that the older, nicer verses are abrogated by the later more violent verses. But in reality all of the Koran is true since it comes from the only god, Allah. Allah is perfection, and therefore, the contradictory statements in the Koran are all true. This violates Aristotelian kafir logic, but it defines the Islamic dualistic logic. In Islam two contradictory things can both be true at the same time, so for every one of those statistically insignificant “good” verses, each one is weak, and the stronger harsh and violent verses are stronger. Contradictions are integral to Islamic logic. To put a fine point on the previous claim—the only good for kafirs in the doctrine of political Islam is negated somewhere else.

Are there any good Muslims?
Islam is the cause; Muslims are the effect. So if there is no good in Islam for a kafir, how is there any good in a Muslim for a kafir? There is not any good in a Muslim for kafirs. Cause and effect. If there are any good Muslims which is what the kafir wants to believe, then the good Muslims that claim to be Muslims are not Muslims. Or the Muslim that claims to be good is deceiving the kafir.
.
Now we get to our central problem. The doctrinal problem here is that a Muslim cannot be the friend of a kafir. The Koran says this 14 times. So if a friend is a Muslim, then that friendship has to be based on deception.

Notice that Islam has a strong core doctrine of mutual Muslims friendship; indeed the Koran says that Muslims are brothers and sisters to each other. Only Muslims can be friends because they are equal. But a Muslim is not equal to a kafir because the Koran says that a Muslim is superior. So where does the so-called good person who is a Muslim get his basis for friendship? The same place as everyone else, from equality. The equality that is inferred from the Golden Rule.

The Golden rule says; treat others as you want to be treated.
Which others? All others, without exception, the Golden Rule implies the unity of humanity. There are no limits to its application. However the Golden Rule does not apply to Islam. Indeed, Islam denies the truth of the Golden Rule. The duality of Islam divides all humanity into Muslims and kafirs. There are no two groups more unequal than kafirs and Muslims. So what do we call a Muslim that seems to be a friend of a kafir? The possible goodness in your Muslim friend comes from the kafir civilization, not Islam. Your friend is either deceiving you or he is no longer a Muslim, he is Westernized, I call them a “MINO” a (Muslim In Name Only) a kafirized Muslim, although he may not admit it. But he is not a good or a moderate Muslim. Remember, Osama bin Laden is a good and moderate Muslim.

A true Muslim has absolutely no attraction to any aspect of kafir culture. The Koran and Sunna condemn 100% of kafir culture, so no Muslim has any desire to emulate kafirs. As soon as a Muslim has any attraction to any aspect of kafir culture, they cease to be a Muslim and become kafir. That is the way the doctrine of Islam works. The name kafirized or Westernized Muslim is analytic and fits the data. The usual names, (good Muslim, moderate Muslim), attempt to credit the good found in Muslims to the doctrine of Islam. The term kafirized Muslim clearly states that the good comes from the kafirs, not Islam.

Now we get to the crux of the politics of the fallacious naming. These names represent a desperate attempt of the West to deal with the problem of Islamic threats, violence, and destruction of kafir civilization. This is looking at Islam through Judeo Christian Eyes. Very few people know much about either the doctrine or history of Islam. So they think of Islam as only a religion and believe since Islam has so many members, it must be one of the great religions. And all religions are seen as good, so Islam must be good. But there is this nagging dark feeling about the violence in Islam. Since Islam has been defined as good, there must be an explanation. Those Muslims who kill must be “extremist” Muslims. This is as I said, looking at Islam through Western or Judeao Christian eyes and it sees Islam as good with just a few rotten apples that spoil the barrel.

Right from the beginning in Islam, Mohammed, Ali, Umar, Abu Bakr and all of the rest of the founding Muslims would have to be identified as “extremist” Muslims since they were killers. Over and over again, what kafirs call extremism is only mainstream Islam, period.

A reformed IslamSome in the West think we can change Islam and come up with the thinking that if Islam has nothing good for Muslims or kafirs, then why not reform it? There is a group of Muslims attempting to do just that, called MUSLIMS AGAINST SHARIA, (for more Information on this organization click here) this idea comes from making an analogy to Christianity. However, Islam’s claims aside, there are almost no points of comparison between Islam and Christianity, only total opposition. On the issue of ethics or values, for instance, there is absolutely no analogy. Islam is truly an aptitude to Christianity and Judaism.

The religion of Islam needs no reform. The kafir generally doesn’t care how Muslims worship? All kafirs must be concerned with is the part of Islam that is political or how Islam defines them. The problem with ignoring the religious part of Islam is that it is what drives the political theocracy of Islam. The Koran, the Sira and the Hadith determine the treatment of kafirs religiously and politically.

To reform the Koran, as the “Muslims against Sharia web site proposes”, all of the hateful, cruel, and bigoted references to kafirs would have to be removed. If the kafir material is removed, then only 39% of the Koran remains. The greatest part of the Koran, 61%, is devoted to negativity about kafirs.

The Sira (the life of Mohammed) has about 75% of its material devoted to jihad.
The Hadith has 20% of its material devoted to jihad. There is no one positive reference to kafirs.If you delete 61% of the Koran, 75% of the Sira and 20% of the Hadith, you will have reformed Islam. You will also have destroyed it, which might be a good thing. So there is a very good reason why Islam has never been reformed. It is impossible.

Is it so hard to believe that a political system with the name “submission” (that is what the word Islam means) is violent, can be reformed?

To submit is a demand of force.
Why would Islam want to reform? It works. You don’t fix a system that works.
The other objection to Islamic reform is that there is no central hierarchy that makes decision for Muslims. Anyone can read the doctrine and decide what to do. No one has the authority to decide what every Muslim can do. In that way, Islam is like the Internet; it is a distributed system with no central doctrinal authority. Who speaks for Islam? Mohammed. Who interprets Mohammed? Any Muslim.

You may have a kafirized Muslim, but there is no such thing as kafirized Islam. Islam cannot be reformed. Hence, the name reformed Islam is only a kafirs ignorant dream.

So you see, right names help to think right thoughts. Muddled names lead to muddled thoughts. If we are serious, we must start using the right names to describe Islam. Our terms must be based upon Islam, not a kafirs ignorant western dream.

All of this analysis is based upon a kafir-centric view. There are three ways to examine Islam—Muslim, kafir and dhimmah or dhimmi

The Muslim believer-centric view is the standard Islamic viewpoint. For the believer, the Koran is the perfect word of the only god of the universe and Mohammed is the prefect pattern for all human life and all times.

Kafir-centric analysis looks at Islam from the viewpoint of the kafir; (Western eyes) how does this affect us? Kafir-centric analysis is the view of the victim. As an example, in the Sira, Mohammed’s triumph over the Meccan polytheists is told as a wonderful victory. From the view of the kafir, it represents the annihilation of a tolerant society and the creation of the modern apartheid state of Arabia. As a result of Islam, the Arabs went from being a tolerant people to being the most bigoted and biased society on earth. The kafir-centric school is skeptical and analytic.

The dhimmi-centric viewpoint is the academic school and is neither fish nor fowl. It is marked by political correctness and never refers to the deaths of the 270 million kafirs, never talks about the suffering of the dhimmis. The dhimmi-centric school is actually believer-centric lite. It rarely applies skepticism. The dhimmi-centric school is the predominate school in the universities, military, law enforcement, government and the media. The dhimmi-centric school is very fond of using modern political science to analyze Islam. One of the marks of the dhimmi-centric school is to ignore Islamic political theory. For instance, jihad is never used to explain violence. Or Israel is seen only as a modern political state and the Palestinians are just another political group. Reading the Israelis news stories, you would never know that Islam had a doctrine of war. But when you read the communications of the Palestinian leaders, it is crystal clear that it is jihad against the kafirs in Israel. From the standpoint of Islam, if every Jew in Israel were a Hindu, virtually nothing would change, they would still be the kafir. .

Multiculturalism is all the rage these days. What is strange is that only the believer-centric school and the kafir-centric theory explain Islam by its doctrine. The dhimmi-centric academic school avoids this at all costs. This is ironic since it was the academics that created multiculturalism. So the dhimmah-centric school is bigoted and euro-centric by its own standards of multiculturalism.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Hopefully one can now understand why it matters how one identifies an issue. Just as calling an illegal alien an undocumented worker somehow excuses the federal Government from doing its constitutional duty of protecting this nation from a foreign invasion at our borders. Article Four - Section Four of the US Constitution this includes among other things which are also ignored, a commitment by the Federal Government to protect this Nation from violence and a foreign invasion. Referring to Muslims as moderate also excuses them from protecting American citizens from our enemy, the Nation of Islam. One can then argue, why would we need to protect ourselves from someone that is peaceful and means us no harm?

The source of this problem is ignorance and deception. The result could be the end of freedom and the advancement of tyranny and oppression…

de Andréa
Comment:
From Muslims Against Sharia
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:46:30 -0700From: noreply-comment@blogger.comTo: writedeandrea@hotmail.comSubject: [The Bottom Line] New comment on Islam Through Muslim Eyws.Muslims Against Sharia has left a new comment on your post "Islam Throught Muslim Eyws":
"If the kafir material is removed, then only 39% of the Koran remains. The greatest part of the Koran, 61%, is devoted to negativity about kafirs."Just out of curiosity, have you eve read the Koran or do you enjoy puling numbers out of thin air? Posted by Muslims Against Sharia to The Bottom Line at 3:46 PM

Reply to Muslims against Sharia From: writedeandrea@hotmail.comTo: noreply-comment@blogger.com; writedeandrea@hotmail.comSubject: RE: [The Bottom Line] New comment on Islam Through Muslim Eyes.Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:30:23 -0700
Yes as a matter of fact I have, the difference is that I have read this unholy book without being deceived as to what it teaches and what the Agenda of Islam is. In your previous responses, you mistakenly tried to compare the reform of Christianity with your deception of Islamic reform. The fundamental difference is, when Christianity was reformed, the 'People' were reformed, not the Scriptures written by Jehovah God. The reformation in your Manifesto doesn't reform any Muslims but it does arbitrarily erase and replace your god Allah's words. The Question I have for you is, Just who gives you the authority to do this???
de Andrea

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

"If the kafir material is removed, then only 39% of the Koran remains. The greatest part of the Koran, 61%, is devoted to negativity about kafirs."

Just out of curiosity, have you eve read the Koran or do you enjoy puling numbers out of thin air?