Pages

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Muhammad: A Brief Biography


Most westerners are abysmally ignorant of the life of Muhammad.  They therefore accept everything that Muslims say at face value, for they have no other choice.  Here is a thumbnail sketch of the life of Muhammad.  It’s by no means complete, just sort of a skeleton for the curious reader to use as a springboard for his or her own exploration into the most successful cult in world history.
Everything We know about Islam and the life of Muhammad comes from Islamic sources.  There are simply no other sources that say a word about Muhammad during his lifetime.  The first mentions of Islam from western sources is Theophanes, who only wrote about the Islamic conquests starting in the invasion of Syria in 634.
My take, in a nutshell, is that Muhammad was a deeply troubled person, with a history of abuse as a child, and some deep mental problems, including, but not limited to epilepsy, paranoid schizophrenia and acromegaly.  This is the general consensus of psycho pathologists who have studied the physical descriptions of Muhammad, his seizures and his general behavior.  He set himself up as the voice of Allah shortly after he started experiencing auditory hallucinations, which were frequently associated with painful epileptic seizures.  He gathered a cult following of a dozen or so from the usual fringe elements of society who seem to be attracted to that sort of thing.  In this way he was no different from David Koresh, Jim Jones, Charles Manson. . . etc etc.  The local townsfolk in Mecca tolerated his eccentricities because he had a couple of powerful patrons in his wife and his uncle.  Still, he was something of a laughingstock in the town and the butt of considerable low grade abuse, sometimes physically.  When this happened, he would call down the fires of hell with Allah’s authority on them, which just increased the abuse he received.  The townsfolk of Mecca were understandably concerned about their relatives who had subscribed to his cult, just like any parent or family member would be today.  After the death of his first wife, Muhammad incensed the community by taking multiple wives, particularly his favorite Aisha, who by her own account was betrothed to him at the age of 6 and deflowered at the age of 9 (He was 53).
The basis of Muhammad’s prophecy was half-remembered scripture and apocryphal writings that Muhammad had heard when he was a caravan manager to Syria.  He was intensely spiritual, and hung on every word he could get about Judaism and Christianity.  Unfortunately, he was illiterate, and had no way of discerning canon from apocrypha, and never received a foundation in scriptural history or theology, so his understanding of the stories he heard lacked context and meaning.  In his “revelation” he freely mixed Judeo-Christian beliefs with pagan Arab legends and beliefs.
All of the passages from the Quran you commonly hear today from Muslim apologists concerning the rights of women, tolerance towards other religions, etc came from this period in Mecca.  Muhammad was a very nice man who only wanted you to believe him, and the only tool he had at hand was persuasion.  Unfortunately, what they don’t tell you is that once he gained temporal power, Allah rescinded most of those nice passages, and replaced them with harsher, totalitarian teachings.  The Quran directly contradicts itself on most all of these issues, and Islamic tradition holds that the later revelations supersede and abrogate the earlier ones.  He was even asked about this, and Allah responded that he could replace his teachings at will.  This is a real problem for Islam, since all Islamic teaching derives from the point source of Muhammad over a very short period of time.
When his wife and uncle passed away, so did his protected status, and a lynch mob was organized.  Muhammad saw it coming and evacuated Mecca for Medina, where he had been invited by the Jewish tribes there who were curious about this prophet who seemed to be prophesying according to their own tradition (His fascination with Judeo-Christianity manifested itself with long recitals of half-baked stories mashed together from the Judeo-Christian scriptures).
Muhammad had a short-lived period as a rock star in Medina, and was accepted by the underclass Ansari Arab tribe because he seemed a political lever to increase their status among the higher class Jewish tribes that lived there and worked the date orchards.  The Jews quickly rejected him as a prophet, because his ramblings didn’t correlate with their written scripture.  They began to demand payment on the loans they had extended him (Leading to the Quranic injunction against usury).
It was at this time that Muhammad started resorting to assassination to silence his detractors. 
Muhammad put together a ragtag raiding band and sought to raid the yearly caravan returning from Syria to Mecca to supply the Hajj during Ramadan (The Hajj and Ramadan were polytheistic Arab traditions that long predated Muhammad, and they were the principle source of income for the very poor community of Mecca).  Mecca got wind and sent an interdiction force to intercept him.  Muhammad missed the caravan, but engage the Meccan militia in his first military engagement and defeated them, taking prisoners.  This military success emboldened him, and he and his Ansari marauders began a full-time pastime of raiding surrounding Arab settlements for plunder.  Word got around, and his legend grew, and attracted followers because the credulous Arabs felt that his successes spoke for his legitimacy.  There’s a number of Hadith that suggest that bribery was a common way for him to ensure faithfulness.
The Jews of Medina fared poorly, and he one by one picked off the tribes of Medina, appropriating their land and industries, and either forcing the Jews to leave, or selling them into slavery.  Had the Jews banded together and stood firm, this never would have happened, but they remained balkanized by tribal ties, and were divided and conquered by Muhammad.  The largest tribe lasted the longest, but the Banu Qarayza were eventually exterminated, their men and boys slaughtered in an all day orgy of beheading, and their women and children sold into slavery.
Long story short, Muhammad gathered together an army of 10,000 Bedouins as a result of his successful campaigns of Banditry, and marched on Mecca, which surrendered without a fight.  Muhammad moved in with a list of public enemies, who he had executed.  The remaining years of his life were spent consolidating the rest of the Arabian peninsula and enhancing his power and prestige (remember, he got a cut of 20% or all booty, most of which then went to bribing his followers for their loyalty).
When he died, Islam splintered and most of his followers left.  His closest followers fought over who would succeed him.  Abu Bakr won the title of Caliph and waged a civil war across Arabia to return the apostates to the fold by force.  Shortly after that he invaded Persia and Syria.  The Sassanid and Byzantine empires were exhausted from a war they had just fought over Syria in 627, and were in no shape financially or militarily to repel an invasion of horse and camel mounted barbarians.  Islam spread through offering three choices:  Accept Islam, Pay the infidel’s Jizhya tax, or die.
Muhammad’s teaching were incoherent and often situational.  His child bride Aisha observed that Allah seemed to bend over backwards to accommodate Muhammad. Allah commanded that Muhammad’s adopted son divorce his wife, because she was very beautiful and Muhammad wanted to marry her.  Muhammad endorsed and practiced codified rape among his female captives, in some cases raping his new wives before the bodies of their fathers and husbands were even cold.  Islamic tradition has it that these women enjoyed this very much.  The requirement of needed four witnesses to convict a rape comes from his favorite Aisha having been found in a compromising situation and Muhammad didn’t want to condemn her by his own laws, so Allah required there be four witnesses (there were only three).  This condemned untold future generations of women to suffer rapes without justice, because of an impossibly high standard needed to convict.
Muhammad was a thief, a liar, a murderer, a torturer, an adulterer, a pedophile and a megalomaniac.  A thoroughly dangerous and despicable man.  I’ve touched on the high points in his career, whole volumes are filled with his petty cruelty, his sick sense of humor, and the literal atrocities that he commanded and endorsed.  From a Christian’s perspective, many of the Islamic teachings are Satanic, and the well-read Christian will have no problem identifying Allah as the Prince of Lies from the Bible. I was once told that it was in bad taste to compare Muhammad to Hitler.  I tend  to agree, it’s an injustice to Hitler.

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Exceeding the Challenge of the Quran


The Quran is a compilation of many of the revelations of Allah To Muhammad during his life.  It has no particular order – the surahs are arranged in the order of the longest to the shortest.  It was not compiled in a chronological order.  This causes a problem for the scholar, since it’s self-contradictory, and by Islamic tradition, the later revelations supercede the earlier ones.  To the rational mind this begs the question of why the omnipotent Allah changed his mind and redacted what he wrote – a problem even more perplexing when you consider that Allah is supposed to have penned the Quran before he created the universe.  Much of the Quran derives from Judeo-Christian writings, including scripture, apocryphal stories, and the midrash.  It makes no distinction between, or even acknowledges the source materials.  The derivation lacks scholarship – it is more like a recital by someone who half remembers something he was taught but never understood.
The Quran was originally delivered in a rhythmic, poetic style unlike anything ever encountered in Arabic culture to that time.  It was delivered in a time when the Arabs were first experimenting with writing, and the Arab language had not been codified into a written language.  The Quran was intended to be memorized by the faithful.  The earliest written Qurans, commissioned during the Uthman caliphate, were written in a primitive Arabic form that lacked vowels and diacritical marks, rendering the text very difficult to decipher even for the native speaker.
Muhammad was quite proud of his creation, and though he specifically denied being able to perform a single miracle, Muslims claim that the Quran is a miracle.  This reminds me of some people I know who, after having read one book in their life, proclaim that book to be the greatest book ever written. 
More people in the west have been studying the Quran in the last decade, and it has consequently come under fire like never before in its history.  The Muslims response to criticism is that we do not understand it because it must be recited in the original Arabic to be appreciated.  This makes no sense at all.  Am I to believe that Allah is the Architect of the Universe, and that the Quran is the ultimate and final revelation by the deity who designed and created Everything, and he couldn’t get his point across in any way except one of the most complex and difficult languages to ever grace the planet?  Is Allah really that incompetent, that his words, his will cannot bear translation?
In the Quran, Allah commanded Muhammad to challenge all of creation to create a book of the stature of the Quran:
“Say: ‘If all mankind and the jinn would come together to produce the like of this Quran, they could not produce its like even though they exerted all and their strength in aiding one another.’” (Quran 17:88)
Next, Allah made the challenge ostensibly easier by asking those who denied its divine origin to imitate even ten chapters of the Quran:
“Or do they say that he has invented it? Say (to them), ‘Bring ten invented chapters like it, and call (for help) on whomever you can besides Allah, if you are truthful.” (Quran 11:13)
This final challenge was to produce even a single chapter to match what is in the Quran, whose shortest chapter, al-Kawthar, consists of only three verses:
“And if you all are in doubt about what I have revealed to My servant, bring a single chapter like it, and call your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful.” (Quran 2:23)
I’ll answer that challenge.  To start:
There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven–
    A time to give birth and a time to die;
         A time to plant and a time to uproot what is planted.
    A time to kill and a time to heal;
         A time to tear down and a time to build up.
    A time to weep and a time to laugh;
         A time to mourn and a time to dance.
    A time to throw stones and a time to gather stones;
         A time to embrace and a time to shun embracing.
    A time to search and a time to give up as lost;
         A time to keep and a time to throw away.
    A time to tear apart and a time to sew together;
         A time to be silent and a time to speak.
    A time to love and a time to hate;
         A time for war and a time for peace.
- Ecclesiastes 3:1-8
And then:
 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.
For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.
When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.
For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.
But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.
 - 1 Corinthians 13
Muhammad was a deeply paranoid man, from all accounts.  He reflected the love his sycophantic followers bestowed on him, and condemned all others to hell-fire – a condemnation he frequently backed up through execution and assassination.  Muhammad’s love amounted to lust for material things – wealth and sex.  Indeed, by the account of St. Paul, Muhammad was a noisy gong, a clanging cymbal.  St. Paul also chides Muhammad 500 years in advance in this passage by pointing out that Judeo-Christianity was mature, had grown out of the harsh fire and brimstone early days of the Torah, yet Muhammad sought to take monotheism back 2000 years and recreate a barbaric time when whole populations were to be exterminated to make room for new Gods.
 When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him.
He opened His mouth and began to teach them, saying,
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
“Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
“Blessed are  the  gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.
“Blessed are  those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
“Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
“Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.
“Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.



“You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.
“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden;
nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.
“Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
“For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
“Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
-The Gospel of Matthew 5:1-19
There you have but three examples among the myriad that far exceed the Quran.  I challenge any Muslims scholar to demonstrate any place in the Quran which has such prose; inciteful, meaningful, philosophical.  The Bible is intended to make the reader think, to examine his own soul and seek to mold himself according to the tenets God lays down.  The Bible challenges us to be bigger than we are, to embrace God’s creation with love.  It does so in a simple, expressive prose, using imagery that’s easy to understand, and words that transcend language.  No matter what language these passages are translated to, their meaning remains clear, the poetry is in the tapestry of ideas that the words create, not in the rhythmic rhyme of a preschooler’s chant.
The Quranic challenge had been met and far surpassed long before Muhammad ever started hearing voices.  This is why the bible is a forbidden book in most Sharia compliant societies today, because the true Word of God puts the mindless, incoherent ramblings of Allah to shame.
My challenge to all Muslims is to put aside your prejudice, and examine the scripture God prepared for you long before Muhammad spoke, and decide for yourself which is the word of God.

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

The Census Race



Later this month, you will be getting a census form in the mail.
The original mandate for the government to perform a census stems from the US Constitution, Article 1, clause 2:
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”
The 3/5’s clause was a direct nod to slaves being held, and was subsequently amended by the 14th Amendment, which removed the 3/5 clause:
“Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.”
The government is already spending a tremendous amount of money on advertising for this census effort.  I’m sure you’ve heard the commercials.  You should be as outraged as I am that government money – that’s your money and mine folks – is being spent on these advertisements which are deliberately misleading.
One commercial talks about how a small town has a couple of traffic lights.  But the town grows and traffic gets worse, and Oh My God how will we know that you need more traffic lights if you don’t answer the census?
Stupid.  Duh, “Hey traffic is getting worse, maybe we should put up some more lights?”  This is a local issue which should be handled on a local level.  The implication of this commercial is that traffic lights flow from the federal government.
Or how about this one: The school has an optimum number of students, but the community grows and there are more students and Oh My God how will we know we need more classrooms and more teachers if you don’t answer the census?
Stupid.  Duh, how about the fact that your classrooms are bulging.  This is an issue that should be resolved at the level of the local school board, not on the basis of some directive from the federal government.  The implication here is that the federal government is best suited to determine the needs of your local school.
Let’s take a look at this census form.  You can check it out at http://2010.census.gov/2010census/how/interactive-form.php.
Okay, how many people live here, how many people are temporarily there, who are they, what are their ages, does anyone sometimes live somewhere else.  I don’t have a problem with that.  What are their sexes?  I guess that’s a legitimate question – goes to estimating expected growth potential, although why the government needs to know that escapes me for the moment.  My phone number?  You don’t need my stinkin’ phone number.  No phone.  Or give them the number to the local pizzeria.
Then I run into the wall on questions 8 and 9.
8. Is person X of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin?
9. What is person X’s Race?
What??!!  Why on earth does the federal government need to know this?  Well, let’s see what they say:

“Asked since 1790.”  Ah yes, 1790, when racism was entrenched in the very fabric of society, a time when the color of your skin dictated whether you could even live as a free man or as a slave.  Yeah, that’s relevant to 2010.  I see now. 
“Race is key to implementing many federal laws and is needed to monitor compliance with the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act.”  This sounds good at first blush, but stop and think about what it’s saying:  1. We implement  laws based on your race.  In effect, we need to know what race you are so we can pass special laws for you.  It seems the laws of the white people aren’t good enough for the colored people.  Or maybe the laws of the white people are too good for the colored people?  If you buy this argument, then you directly support segregation and Jim Crowe laws.  If the Government doesn’t know what race you are, how can they possibly make laws that are discriminatory or preferential based on the color of your skin?  2. We need to monitor compliance with the voting rights act and civil rights act.  Can someone possibly tell me how the census accomplishes this?   What does the government actually, effectively do to make sure this legislation is complied with?  This is not the government’s job.  There are plenty of civil rights organizations which will blow the whistle loud and long if a person is denied their rights on the basis of race.  These are far more effective than the impotent statistic shuffling of some bureaucrat in the bowels of some building in Washington DC.
“State governments use the data to determine congressional, state and local voting districts.”  WHAT!!??  Are you telling me that the government endorses gerrymandering districts on the basis of skin color?  This is segregation in the rawest political sense.  It’s elitist and separationist. Colored folk aren’t good enough to vote in a white man’s district, so we’ll give them their own district.  Now, I know I’m going to hear a lot of arguments about this being the only that the colored community can get representation in government, and to this I say baloney.  We have a black president, and he didn’t get put there exclusively by the minority colored population.  People, by gerrymandering districts so that the members of a district are likely to vote as a single bock, you’re short-circuiting the whole point of districting, which is to ensure that the individual has the greatest amount of power with their vote.  By districting along racial lines, the government is effectively throwing the colored community a poison bone, allowing them to feel empowered by electing their own representative, who will always be an outvoted minority in the halls of Congress, and in return the colored people won’t be allowed to mess with the proper white man’s elections by voting for the wrong person.  Don’t you see?  Wake up!  This is not a good thing for the colored community!  The majority of congress has no reason to consider you when passing legislation, because the districts have been drawn so that they don’t have to answer to you!  For more on the actual math of why such districting robs you of your voting power, seeMath Against Tyranny.
“Race data are also used to assess fairness of employment practices, to monitor racial disparities in characteristics such as health and education. . .”   Nowhere on the census form does it ask whether you are employed, or how much you make.  Nowhere on the IRS form 1040 does it ask you what race you are.  Isn’t it wonderful how colorblind the government becomes when it just wants your money?  Knowing that colored people are at higher risk for certain health conditions or vice versa is a function of the health care provider, not the Federal Government.  The Government is not our health care provider – yet.  God help us if it ever does take on that role.  You want to know who the best person to monitor the potential of education disparities is?  The parents.  Parents can petition locally elected school boards, or even sit on those boards, and institute standards of excellence at a local level.  You don’t need the federal government for this.  In fact, by abdicating this local responsibility to the federal government, parents give their children over to an education bureaucracy that cares nothing for educational excellence, only for perpetuating it’s own existence.
Fairness of employment is ensured by the marketplace.  Today’s employment marketplace is such that job candidates are free to shop their skills to the highest bidder in the market.  An employer who deliberately overlooks a qualified job applicant on the basis of the color of his skin is putting himself at a disadvantage in the marketplace, and will be out-competed by his competitor who hires the most qualified people without regard to skin color.  Discriminatory hiring practices have not been confined to just colored candidates, and have always been impermanent, as the market punishes those who do not seek excellence wherever it’s found.
“Race data are used. . . .to plan and obtain funds for public services.”  So public services are apportioned on the basis of skin color?  Colored populations need more public services?  Why?  Because they’re poorer?  Why are they poor?  Maybe the fact that the government knows what color certain communities are and doesn’t provide an equal level of education for those communities?  Have you thought of that?  Does anyone in reading distance of my words make the contention that colored people are unable to provide for themselves as well as whites, and therefore need special consideration?  This is tantamount to saying that a colored man is not equivalent to the white man.  I say this is a ridiculous proposition, and should be dispensed with.
Our history has conditioned us to think that “race” is somehow significant.  But how do you define race?  Skin color?  Hair color?  I can donate blood to be used by another person if their blood type is the same as mine, and skin color has nothing to do with it.  It would be just as logical to separate populations by hair color, eye color, left- or right-handedness, or the ability to roll your tongue.  The idea that someone’s skin color should define their living or voting patterns is specious at best.  But the government and unscrupulous leaders have played on the fears of the group and  convinced too many people that they themselves must be racist and support racist policies and racist legislation in self-defense.  Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have turned the practice of demagoguery into big business, and they’re paid quite well to keep fomenting racial tensions.
This is not what America is about.  This is not my America.  The idea of race is idiotic.  We are all one race:  the Human race.  The sooner the government quits asking stupid questions like what color your skin is, the sooner people will quit thinking that this is important, and the sooner we can put it behind us.  So when you get your census forms this year, I encourage you when you’re filling it out, for question 9, mark “Other” and write in “Human”.  Imagine the consternation of the government bureaucrats when it discovers that it’s ruling over a nation of Human-Americans!
The ONLY way that the government can govern impartially for all is if it’s color-blind.  And the only way you can make it color-blind is to not tell it what color you are.
I’m not the only one who’s offended by this. . . I’m in good company, see Michelle Malkin’s article!

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

20% Recidivisim "Not Bad"? WTF?



John Brennan states that a 20% recidivisim rate among released Guantanamo detainees "Isn't bad."  He clarifies by saying that the recidivism rates among US paroled prisoners is as high as 50%.

Excuse me, John, but you have a big disconnect here.  These aren't convicted felons, they were prisoners of war!  They were enemy combatants captured on the battlefield!  Never before in the history of armed conflict has a nation released prisoners of war without a parole agreement (Like the Muslims would even honor such and agreement), or an in-kind exchange before the cessation of hostilities.

It was not uncommon in the Napoleonic era for officers to be paroled back to their home countries, on the condition that they not engage in warfare against the paroling nation in the future.  That's not what happened in Guantanamo.

No, John, those prisoners were released back into the wild on the premise that they were not terrorists.  You and your buddies stood on your hind legs and looked us in the eye and assured us that these men were innocent, they were no threat, they were captured by mistake.  You told us, I'll repeat this, that they were not terrorists!

You lied, and now people are dying.  These non-terrorists are back on the battlefield, full of street cred with their fellow terrorists, killing and maiming American soldiers.  I demand a congressional investigation to find out who was in the chain of decision that turned these animals free, and those responsible should take their place in Guantanamo Bay prison.

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Civilian Casualties

One of the problems plaguing our troops in Afghanistan is the specter of civilian casualties. Operations routinely take place in urban or suburban areas, and civilians get caught in the cross-fire, or become collateral damage in air strikes.  This isn’t just confined to Afghanistan either, as a low-key air operation against terrorists in Waziristan is used as a propaganda weapon as the enemy parades scenes of dead civilians on Al Jazheera.

The civilian casualties aren’t the problem here. The way that the American Administration deals with it is. The previous Administration was inept at communication, and the present administration is simply inept.

First of all, let’s absolve ourselves of some guilt here. By definition, all of our enemies in this part of the world are civilians. They do not wear a uniform, and are not part of a recognized governmental armed force. So the definition of a non-combatant in this region is one who is not currently shooting at someone. This fact has not been stated by our leadership, and it needs to be.

Second, a message needs to be sent to the residents of this region. There are some very bad people in your countries who have declared that they are enemies of the United States, and have demonstrably put their words into action. We want these people dead, very badly. You have a pretty good idea of who these people are. It’s in your best interests to stay as far away from these people as possible, because when we find them – and we will – we are going to blow them up. You really don’t want to be in the area when this happens. If you choose to associate with these people, or tolerate them living next to you, don’t claim to be an innocent victim when things start exploding around you.

If you invite a known, wanted terrorist into your house or mosque, or if you attend a meeting or ceremony with same, it’s your fault if you or your loved ones are maimed or killed when we go after him. Stay away from the terrorists, move slowly and keep your hands in plain sight at all times, and you’ll be quite safe. Remember, treat the Islamic terrorist as if he’s likely to violently explode at any time with no warning, and you won’t be far wrong.

The best advice that I can give is that if you find yourself in the presence of a sworn enemy of the USA, place as much distance between you and he as possible. Two kilometers is a good minimum. To remove uncertainty from your life, you could report the location of the enemy to the nearest NATO unit - preferably one with a Forward Air Controller. Or better yet, if you deliver the enemies of the USA to any US military unit, you may be handsomely rewarded. Dead or alive, we really don’t care much.

Our administration and military leadership needs to make the realities of war clear to the residents of the area, and come to grips with the idea that this is a war, and that civilian casualties will be unavoidable. The alternative is that we tie the hands of our soldiers with ridiculous rules of engagement that guarantee that victory cannot be achieved. They need to bow their heads in sorrow when civilians are hurt, but recognize that this is an insurgency, and that any civilian in the presence of a terrorist or combatant is likely there by choice, because they support the combatant in some way or other.

The idea that we have called off operations that could have killed Bin Laden and other high ranking enemies because there would be civilian casualties is just plain ludicrous. Those people are close to these targets because they want to be. They support the enemy with aid and comfort, they are not friends of the USA and never will be, and should be treated as enemies themselves.

Monday, November 16, 2009

Straight Thinking About Trying the Guantanamo Prisoners.

Republicans are up in arms that the Obama administration is going to transfer Islamic jihadi terrorists from Guantanamo Bay security facility to New York City to be tried in civil court.

I can understand their point of view, but c’mon, guys, is this really a battle worth fighting? One of the things that really ticked me off about the liberals throughout the Bush administration was the fact that no matter what Bush did, it was either wrong or not good enough. Now we’re doing the same thing to the Obama administration. Now, let’s be clear, I don’t like Obama, and I think his presidency is going to be a disaster for this country. But on this one case he’s not all wrong.

There are several things to consider when evaluating this: intended consequences, unintended consequences, and precedent.

Intended consequences.

The keystone of the Republican opposition to this move is that they’re afraid that a civil court is going to get hold of these guys, introduce civil rules of evidence, and that these guys are going to walk on a technicality, or that a sympathetic jury will find an inadequate case to convict. All things being equal, and with the history of our judicial system, that’s a reasonable thing to think. Just ask O.J..

Republicans, stop and think a second. This is the Obama Administration! Now what is job number one for Obama? That’s right, getting re-elected in 2012. Everything else takes a back seat to that. Now Obama’s inexperienced and unqualified, but he’s not exactly an idiot. He knows that if Khalid Sheik Muhammad walks on a technicality in New York City, that he’s going to be crucified in the polls come 2012. So that’s not going to happen. The Chicago machine is going to make sure of it. Trust me, the fix is in long before the gavel falls to open proceedings. You can bet that the prosecuting attorney is already measuring for new drapes in the State attorney General’s office, and that the presiding judge is virtually guaranteed a circuit court seat at the earliest possible vacancy. Keep a close eye on whoever gets picked to defend these guys, they’ll make a ton in windfall profits. Just like the Chicago prizefighter makes it look good and then takes a fall, the defense will do their best and will ultimately lose.

Now if a Republican administration moved to influence a court proceeding with the sort of heavy handed methods that are going to be used in this show trial, the press would be howling for blood. But since this is Obama, no one is going to give it a passing sniff, it’s just another quiet day in America, folks. Move along.

If you think this is a little optimistic, think about who we’re dealing with. Obama has no qualms about throwing his allies under the bus to further his political ambitions. Remember Jeremiah Wright, whom he could no more disown than his own Grandma? Amazing how quiet he’s been. And speaking of Grandma. . .she sort of headed under the bus after Rev. Wright, when she announced that she remembered Barry being born – in Kenya!

If this is how Obama treats his closest kin and friends, then Khalid Sheik Muhammad is a walking dead man. He will go to New York, get a fair trial, and then they’ll execute him, swiftly and with due process. You won’t have to pack the jury. This is New York City, and any jury you pick is going to have their minds made up from the get-go. And don’t worry about the exposure of classified information that may be necessary to convict. You can do it without that.

The fix is in.

The intended consequence is that the world will nod their head sagely and say, yes, America practices what it preaches, they tried them and convicted them and executed them. Political win for America. And if they don’t – well, get real, did you really expect them to? Nothing’s lost.

Unintended consequences.

The Democrats never stop to think about the unintended consequences. The bleeding hearts are wringing their hands about these poor prisoners of war being held without being charged, their lives in limbo. These are feelings, and to a liberal feelings hold sway, irrespective of the laws of armed conflict. For some reason, because this animal physically resembles a human, he gets to enjoy the benefits of the protections of the US constitution – a legal system that he had vowed to destroy.

So unintended consequences on the battlefield: A 21 year old Marine is in combat, and after a furious exchange of gunfire, the Mujahadeen he’s shooting at runs out of ammo and throws his hands up. Our Marine looks at the corpsman administering to his wounded buddy, and then regards the surrendering Jihadi. It flashes through his mind that this guy has just earned himself three hot meals a day and a comfortable bed while he goes on trial, and may stand a good chance to walk free so he can come back and re-arm and be shooting at them another day. . . .

Oops. Sorry ‘bout that, Hajji. I didn’t see your hands up. Looked like you had a weapon. . . .give my regards to Allah.

If we ever took another prisoner in the war against Islam, it would be a testament to the extreme professionalism of our fighting men.

And what if we actually pull off the capture of Osama Bin Laden? I bet it would be real cool if we could get Khalid Sheik Muhammad to turn State’s Evidence against him and testify. . . .only we let him walk. . or killed him already. Oops.

You should think about these sorts of things, first, guys.

Precedent

Let’s face it, if the system worked, we wouldn’t be having these conversations. Bush dragged his feet, unable, as usual, to make a decision on what he should do, and consequently the military tribunals were never convened, and these guys never got served justice.    So by lack of action, Bush showed that military tribunals have no place in the war on Terror.

Now Barry’s going to set the precedent that these guys get constitutional rights. Yeah, but he’s also going to set the precedent that these guys get executed as well. The defense will raise a number of points which will be struck down, and the appellate courts will conveniently ignore the breach of law and rights of the accused, and precedent will be set that the defense’s best tools in these sorts of cases will be inadmissible. Khalid Sheik Muhammad’s journey is going to grease the skids to death row for future terrorists tried in civil court.

There you have it. Khalid Sheik Muhammad and his cronies die for their crimes, Barry dodges one of the many bullets which are going to doom him to being a one-term president, the military passes a wink and a nod policy on not taking prisoners, and precedent is set to make it very difficult for terrorists to get a fair shake under the judicial system they vow to destroy.

Monday, November 9, 2009

Violence in Scripture

In any discussion with a Muslim about the obvious shortcomings of the Quran, a Christian apologist will be confronted with a blizzard of biblical passages that show how evil, depraved, and violent the Judeo-Christian tradition is. Muslims do this in an attempt to deflect the obvious passages in the Quran that give lie to Islam as “The Religion of Peace”, as well as other claims that Allah is the God of Abraham and Jacob. There are a number of logical problems with this tactic of Muslims, however.

Problem #1: Attacking another is not a defense. 
Standard Islamic rhetoric is to attack Christianity in an attempt to draw moral equivalency. This is an empty argument, since moral equivalency goes far deeper than just throwing scripture back and forth. One can easily cherry pick objectionable passages from the scripture of any religious body. The question needs to be examined with a wider frame of reference.
One critical point is how the proponents of each religious tradition apply their scripture? We have ample evidence that Jesus never killed anyone. He never stole anything. He never used his position for his own enrichment or self-aggrandizement. There’s no evidence that he fornicated or even had sexual relations with anyone. He forgave his persecutors, even as they killed him. When confronted with situations where the scripture dictated a death sentence, he taught forgiveness and tolerance. One critical point about Jesus is that he operated within the existing framework of religious law as passed down from Moses and previous prophets.

Muhammad, on the other hand, wasn’t constrained by previous law or scripture. He freely made it up as he went along to suit himself. He paid lip service to whatever Judeo-Christian scripture suited him, although he always failed to understand the underlying lessons, and frequently mis-stated the stories in ways that directly contradicted the written scriptures of Judaism and Christianity. He routinely killed those who disagreed with him. He assassinated critics, and presided over massacres such as that of the helpless Banu Qarayza tribe of Jews in Medina. He and his followers made a life of banditry and looting, and justified it on the basis of religious commandments from Allah, with whom only Muhammad could communicate. Muhammad got a 20% cut of all the loot collected, which he distributed in the form of bribes to ensure the loyalty of his followers. He condemned everyone who disagreed with him, and extracted vicious and cruel revenge. He tortured people, building a fire on one man, and ordering an old woman to be dismembered by tying her limbs to camels. He was a sexual libertine, having relations with any woman who struck his fancy. This is dismissed by Muslims as they point out that he was married to them, which was not always true. The Muslims who support this morality fail to tell you that marriage in Muhammad’s cult took no consideration of the woman’s desires. Muhammad had no qualms about taking a “wife” to his tent before the dead bodies of her murdered father and husband were even cold.

A fundamental basis of both Christianity and Islam is that the adherents of each seek to emulate the example set by the founder of each religion. Christians who engage in violence and atrocities are not doing so because they’re following the example of Christ.  On the contrary, Christ never did these things, so one cannot condemn Christianity as the source of such acts of evil. Muslims on the other hand can and do justify their actions by pointing out that their prophet behaved in a similar fashion. This behavior on the part of their prophet is conveniently ignored by the more moderate, “peaceful” Muslims.

Problem #2: Relevance
Critics who attempt to paint Judeo-Christian scriptural violence as equivalent to violence documented in the Hadith and endorsed in the Quran usually quote heavily from the Pentateuch, which is supposed to have been recorded in the time of Moses. These first five books are the foundation upon which two thousand years of documented Judeo-Christian scripture was based. The laws given then were harsh, and had the specific purpose of separating the Israelites who escaped from Egypt from their slave mentality and contamination from pagan influences. No Jew or Christian today maintains that the letter of the Mosaic law be observed in detail today. This position is justified based on later developments in the four thousand year relationship between the God of Abraham, the Jews and subsequently the Christians. The Judeo-Christian is a documented history of the development of the ongoing relationship between God and Man.

Islam on the other hand, has a point source in history. It was revealed in its entirety in the space of twenty years to a single man. It has no precedent, and no modifying antecedent. Moreover, tradition holds that the entirety of the Quran was recorded in Heaven before the universe was created (There are obvious problems with this supposition, but they’re outside the scope of this discussion). Therefore the Law as given to Muhammad is the law for all time, past, present and future, and immutable (well, Muhammad could modify it, and often did, because he was making it up. But no one else had that privilege).   Islamic scholars have no basis on which to justify any claim that parts of the Quranic law may be ignored today. This is borne out when one examines sharia law, which so many Muslims are pressing to be implemented in the west. Sharia calls for a positively medieval approach to justice, and anyone who subscribes to it cannot in any way be considered a “peaceful” Muslim.

Problem #3: Tone
The general tone of a piece of scripture may be discerned as a balance between what we would consider hateful, violent passages, and peaceful, uplifting passages. In the Christian example, we may further refine the general tone by assigning a greater weight to more recent scripture than the ancient texts. There’s no doubt that Mosaic law was very harsh, as is Islamic law. However, I challenge you to find a single passage in the Quran that equates to 1 Corinthians 13. There is nothing in the Quran that compares to the Beatitudes detailed in Matthew 5. The word love is hardly used in the Quran, and when it is it’s only in the context of things that please Allah. The challenge of the Quran says to bring forth a revelation that is equal to it. I have just provided two passages from the New Testament that exceed anything the Quran has to offer in both composition and content.

Taken as a whole, the Judeo-Christian scripture is a promise of hope and salvation; of enlightenment and the love of God for mankind. Sure, there are violent, harsh passages.  But they're the exception, not the rule, and they usually derive from the most ancient texts.  The Quran is a testament of pettiness and inconsistency, about a hateful, spiteful, tyrannical, self-absorbed deity who has little or no regard for the fruits of his creation except as they can serve him as slaves. The Quran is consistently harsh, with seeming every declarative ending in hellfire for the infidels and self-congratulation on how great and beneficent Allah is.  It gets pretty old, pretty quick.

Problem #4: Consistency
As was discussed previously, most of the Judeo-Christian scripture passages that Muslims wave to demonstrate moral equivalency date from the very earliest days of recorded Jewish history. Subsequent developments in the Judeo-Christian experience have rendered most of these moot. They no longer apply because the theology no longer requires it. In other words, the relationship between Judeo-Christian people and their God has matured beyond the need for such harsh laws, much as the relationship between a parent and a child matures as the child grows in years and wisdom. The mature theology recognizes that the Judeo-Christian society has matured to embrace a system of values which reflect the spirit of the law. As God taught Moses, there is nothing new in the Commandments. They are merely codifying the law that’s already written in men’s hearts. Where one can easily find an objectionable passage in the old law, it has been softened and mitigated as the law developed over thousands of years of God interacting both directly and indirectly with the faithful.

In Islamic scripture, the situation is reversed. Muslims are quick to quote peaceful sounding, conciliatory passages from the Quran which seem to speak to the general welfare of mankind. They use these passages especially when courting a potential convert to the faith. Islam is peaceful. Islam is tolerant. The problem is that all of these passages were “revealed” to Muhammad during his time in Mecca, when Islam was no more than two dozen adherents, and he had no political power. There are a plethora of contradictory passages which advocate the death of infidels and non-believers, and assign such to some pretty imaginative punishments in Hell. All of these harsh, intolerant passages were revealed in the later period in Medina, where Muhammad had fashioned himself into a warlord. Islamic scholars have been forced to reconcile these contradictions through a school of abrogation, where later revelations supercede earlier. In fact, Muhammad himself was buttonholed on this point by followers who remembered what he said. Consequently “Allah” revealed that he will make Muhammad forget a surah, and replace it with a better one.

Now stop and think about this for a second. . . .The Quran was recorded before time began, and Muhammad was made to memorize it. That’s Muslim tradition. Yet in the space of the twenty years of revelation, Allah made Muhammad forget parts, and then replaced them with better parts. With a story like this, you expect anyone to believe that a deity who indulges in this sort of tomfoolery is actually the author of creation? I don’t buy it. I don’t see how anyone possibly can.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Reality Check in Afghanistan

We’re losing the war in Afghanistan.

This is hardly surprising, since one of the unfortunate legacies of the Bush administration was that we never adequately defined what would constitute a victory in our various military ventures initiated under his watch. Add to that a seemingly deliberate ignorance of the historical background of Afghanistan that earned it the nickname “Graveyard of Empires.”

Bush roundly criticized the Clinton administration for engaging in fruitless nation building. Then in his very first military venture, set us up to be nation building on a scale never before attempted.

Afghanistan chewed up the British army in the 19th century, and the Russian army in the 20th century. The country can be subdued, but the resources required to do so have never been justified by any power that’s attempted it, leaving the forces that are tasked with the job under manned. If a peaceful, prosperous Afghanistan had something to offer, the story might be different, but the country simply brings very little to the world market to make it worthwhile expending the resources that would be necessary to subdue its unruly culture. It’s an investment that no one has ever found a way to pay dividends.

Dexter Filkins’ story in the New York Times, Stanley McChrystal’s Long War, highlights many of the problems faced by US forces in Afghanistan today. We have lost the initiative, and the conflict has degenerated into a prolonged war of attrition, in which the cream of the American (and allied) youth are fed into a meat grinder with no perceivable benefit resulting from their sacrifice. General McChrystal’s solution is to regain the initiative by adding 40,000 more soldiers to take the fight to the enemy.

Whether this will work is problematic. Certainly, given the political will, we can defeat the Taliban militarily on the ground – the only force capable of defeating the US military is the US congress. But does that constitute victory? What then?

The sad fact is that adult literacy in Afghanistan is a mere 25%. Literacy among children is virtually nonexistent. According to Michael Yon’s article Adopt-a-stan, half the country is under the age of 17.5 years. These two facts alone should instruct the US administration in the obvious:  Democracy will not work in Afghanistan! This country is the international equivalent of an illiterate juvenile delinquent. Self-government answerable to the people is a fantasy. Creating a consensus and managing a country to step into the 21st century requires an educated, literate, informed electorate. If you don’t have that, any government taking power will rapidly devolve into corruption and dictatorial behavior. 

A fundamental lesson of history is that you cannot impose democracy from the outside. Democracy has to take root and grow on its own within a society. The transition to a democracy has never been accomplished without a lot of bloodshed. It’s a painful, bloody process, and there’s no way to get around that which doesn’t yield less than satisfactory results.

Afghanistan’s problem isn’t a lack of security. It’s not a lack of schools. It’s not the Taliban. It’s not poverty. These are all symptoms. Afghanistan’s problem is Islam. Since it’s politically unacceptable to acknowledge the elephant in the room, defeating any of the symptoms is just a stopgap measure, and when left to itself, those same symptoms will recur, because the root cause has not been addressed.

Can Afghanistan be fixed? Yes. In an ideal scenario, the best thing for Afghanistan in the long run would be to get rid of the current government – it’s a farce of a democracy anyway – and make it a UN protectorate – or perhaps a US protectorate under UN auspices to avoid the corruption that seems to accompany UN efforts. Let’s face it, Afghanistan as a country is defined more by the countries around it than by any national identity anyway. The Protectorate would be charged with pacification and administration with the goal of eventually building the infrastructure and social foundation adequate to allow sustainable self-government. This approach worked well for the Philippines – at least it was working well until World War Two derailed much of the economic and social progress that the Philippines had made towards being a workable self-governing country. The Philippines of 1900 bears a great deal of social and economic similarity to Afghanistan today. Lessons are to be learned from that.

This would be done with the understanding that Afghanistan would again become an independent country once certain milestones are accomplished, including, but not necessarily limited to:
  • Electrification of 90% of the country. 
  • 90% literacy rate among adults 16 and older.
  • Closure of all Madrassas, a requirement to attend government schools that all teach to a certain standard. Teaching religion in schools would be outlawed.
  • Modern highways between all urban centers.
  • Civil infrastructure comparable to western nations in per capita hospital beds, firefighting, police, etc.
  • Self-sustaining food production (and a corresponding end to the opium trade).
  • The established operation of an independent news media (Newspapers, TV, radio and internet)
Such a protectorate government could enact draconian measures to secure the peace. Madrassas would be closed. Sharia law would be given a back seat to human rights and protectorate law. Inflammatory clerics could be arrested for disturbing the peace. Divisive Islamic teachings could be put aside in favor of reading, writing and arithmetic. Local governments could be mentored in how to develop the prosperity of all. This effort would take a generation, and a huge commitment on whatever poor body the responsibility fell to.

It would also be wildly unpopular to the Muslim community of nations. Prosperous democracies in formerly Islamic theocracies are a direct challenge to too many governments holding tenuous power in the Islamic league of nations.

Okay, this scenario is a pipe dream too. No country - not even America - is going to sign on to be stuck with this level of responsibility.  America and possibly Britain are the only countries which have a cultural mindset that could make this work.

So what’s the answer? Let’s get back to basics. 9/11 is why we were in Afghanistan in the first place. Al Qaida was operating an international terrorist training and operations headquarters as guests of the Afghan government. We went in and demolished the Al Qaida presence and kicked over the Afghan government as a punishment for supporting it. Al Qaida is now operating – at a much reduced capability – out of western Pakistan.

Essentially, we chased a criminal into a swamp, and somehow took on responsibility to drain the swamp and deal with the alligators. We need to stay focused on catching the criminal. This should dictate our future actions in Afghanistan. 

Is the Taliban a threat? As abhorrent as they are, the Taliban does not pose a national security threat to the USA. Europe is more concerned with the actions of the Taliban, because the streets of Europe are the main terminal for the opium that the Taliban produces. Interdicting a drug trade doesn’t require the invasion and subjugation of a nation. The Taliban are a bunch of radical, backwards zealots, and the world would be better off if they were pushing up daisies, but there’s no evidence that they do anything beyond their own sphere of influence. They simply haven’t got the resources even if they wanted to. They should be the problem of the local populations – if the locals want them gone bad enough, they can take up arms and make that happen.

Should the US prop up the current government? Remember that birthing a democracy is neither peaceful or pretty. We should stay out of it, and let events take their course. Afghan heroes and patriots need to step forward and stand on their own.

The US needs to ensure that Al Qaida is terminated. This will require that US forces in Afghanistan be redeployed to secure the eastern border region with Pakistan and interdict border traffic in support of Pakistani efforts in Waziristan. Pakistan needs to be made aware that they must secure their control over Waziristan and hand over the remnants of Al Qaida. If they demonstrate that they cannot do this, then we must cross the border and do it. If the Pakistani army cannot control Waziristan, then how can they challenge us? Yes, this will create a diplomatic row. So what? We lay the foundation, and make it clear that we’re not challenging the Pakistani government or sovereignty, and that we will leave the moment our mission is accomplished. If they would enforce the legitimate request of the USA and not harbor international terrorists, we wouldn’t be in their country. 

The war against Islam – hey, you might not think it’s a war against Islam, but the enemy does – will require a change of thinking. Our priority is protecting America. Rebuilding Afghanistan isn’t going to do much for accomplishing that priority, so why are we fighting and dying to do it? I’m not saying we should pull out, I’m saying we need to define realistic victory conditions, and then do everything necessary to meet those, and stop efforts that do not contribute to them.

Where does this leave the Afghan people? Well, sorry to say they’re pretty much screwed. But you know what? They’re going to be screwed anyway even if we lose another 10,000 soldiers there trying to bring that country into the 21st century.  The world needs to get the idea that when someone cries “Somebody do something!”, the answer may be “Do it yourself!”  We don’t have an approach that will yield a sustainable result in Afghanistan, and the international community won’t support an approach that will. We’re very good at deposing regimes. If Afghanistan generates another regime that becomes a clear and present danger to the US, we can and should take that one down, too.