New ping list for Islamic Jihad and terrorism. 3 pings per day, every day. Some from my old ping list are on by default.
On or off let me know by freepmail.
Easy on, easy off, via freepmail.
Posted on 11/14/2003 6:59:14 PM PST by dennisw
How Islam became the darling of the western apologists
By: Ali Sina
Often Muslims ask me if Islam is such an evil thing as I portray it then why so many western writers have praised it?"
One person wrote “Will you also tell me that the Encyclopedia Britannica is also false and is being paid by the Saudi Govt. to tell lies?"
The answer is that the publishers of the Britanica, or any other encyclopedia, do not lie deliberately. However the information that these encyclopedias contain is not always accurate. They ask experts to write a short introduction on the fields of their expertise. They act in good faith. However most of the so-called experts of Islam receive grants from the Saudi Kingdom, Iran and other Islamic sources. There is nothing secret or illegal about that. Anyone can donate money to a cause that he or she thinks is important. There are people who give for medical researches, scientific researches, archeological researches, etc. Most of the universities and faculties supplement their income through grants that can come from various sources. The Saudis pay for the Islamic “research”. They spend 4% of their budget to promote Islam. That is billions of dollars. The professors have to appease their Saudi sponsors to receive those hefty grants. They are also well lobbied and are chic to chic with their Muslim patrons. So what they write is half of the truth. The ugly half of the truth remains untold. Therefore the Islam that they teach to their students is a sanitized version of it.
For example Prof. Michael Sells of the University of North Carolina wrote a benign version of the Quran omitting the violent verses that Muhammad wrote during the last decade of his life. This is dishonest scholarship. I have no idea why Prof. Sells would do such thing. I wrote him a letter asking for explanation but received no response.
I also invited Prof. John Esposito, the chief editor of the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World and The Oxford History of Islam to debate with me about the history of Islam and defend his claim that Islam expanded peacefully. Dr. Esposito did not respond also.
Now, it is not that difficult to find the truth. All we have to do is to read the original history of Islam written by the early historians, read the hadith that contain a lot of historic information and read the Quran. When you do that; you get to know the true Islam. This is the pure Islam as taught by the Wahhabis and practiced by the Taliban. Then when you read the books written by these modern apologists of Islam you see that they are not presenting the true Islam.
What we are doing in this site (faithfreedom.org), is going to the source. We quote the history of Islam with reference to the hadith, Sirah, al Waquidi and al Tabari. These are the early books on the history of Islam written by Muslim historians. All the later scholars must, or should have consulted these books. There are no other reliable and authentic sources on the history of Islam. So if what the modern Islamic writers say is contrary to what these original sources say, they are not telling the truth.
Why would such illustrious experts on Islam lie? The answer is not that simple. It is not just the greed that drives these modern day apologists to lie. Some of them actually have never read the original sources that I mentioned. They rely on what other, relatively contemporary historians have written. This, sanitized version of Islam is taught even in the universities. As a matter of fact if any university dares to teach the truth, the Muslims will flood that university with thousands of complaints and threats forcing it to back off. One glaring example of this Islamic hooliganism is the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and another is what took place just a few days ago when the publisher Amber Books of UK was forced to apologize for printing a picture of Muhammad that Muslims found offensive.
Muslims terrorize those who write books that reveal the ugly side of Islam. In such a repressive atmosphere of deceit, truth is always the casualty.
There is also another factor that has to be taken into consideration. In the last century, the Europeans started to dislike Christianity and found every other culture better than their own Judeo Christian one. Romanticizing about the Indian culture, the Chinese culture, or the Islamic culture became the vogue. To be ranked as intellectual all you had to do was to criticize Judeo-Christianism and pay tributes to other cultures. This mentality actually gave birth to a cult that is now permeating the western mindset. It is called Political Correctness. To be a member of this cult and be accepted by others, you must not tell the truth if that truth could offend someone else. You are supposed to say things that are nice lest you hurt another person's sensibility. In other words, Political Correctness is expediently lying when truth is offensive. Of course criticizing Judeo-Christinism is not considered to be politically incorrect. You can offend the Jews or the Christians but not others.
Thus influenced by this culture of self-deceit, many Westerners and especially the Europeans produced a lot of revisionistic garbage, lying about the historic facts.
Emerging from the dark ages of colonialism, when the newspapers started revealing the brutalities perpetrated by their own governments in the colonized countries and what their church had done especially in Americas, the Europeans were shocked. They were disgusted of the inhumanity of their own ethos. Therefore lauding other cultures and vilifying their own was a form of repentance.
They produced politically correct but factually incorrect literature and even taught those lies to their children. Textbooks were rewritten to accommodate the non Judeo-Christian mores. The idea was to educate the new generations to be tolerant and accepting of other cultures. The idea was noble; something that Muslims are not even close to understand. However. The sad reality is that by doing so, the truth was sacrificed at the altar of Political Correctness. This provided the milieu for Islam to expand in the West. Islam thrives in an environment where truth is suppressed.
Political Correctness is the brainchild of the people with good intention. However, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. One of the objectives of Faith Freedom International is to combat the ethos of Political Correctness and uphold the truth even when the truth is less expedient. It is our conviction that only truth, informed by facts and not by beliefs, can set us free.
Correct. And Islam strives to supress the truth so that it can thrive.
New ping list for Islamic Jihad and terrorism. 3 pings per day, every day. Some from my old ping list are on by default.
On or off let me know by freepmail.
Easy on, easy off, via freepmail.
Just like its kissing cousins of Communism, facism and leftist liberalism.
This is why it is so popular among Democrats and other traitors. They too rely on environments in which truth is suppressed.
If the link doesn't work, click on the 'Does the soul exist?' link on the home page
There are two Faithfreedom sites. One is Faithfreedom.org and the other is Faithfreedom.com.
The .org site is anti-islam and the
.com site is pro-islam.
In two words:
Probably not.
PC is insidious and like a cancer or cockroaches. When uncontrolled, it pops up everywhere. Even dictionaries.
I will post the pre-PC entry on Islam for that very Encyclopedia one of these days. 1771 to be exact.
The writers of that entry and the editors would probably go to jail if they published it today. The truth is not as priceless as it used to be.
It is stealth repentance, and inconsistent with a sense of history and context.
The biggest crime committed by these revisionists is insisting on comparing 14th century Christianity with contemporary Islam.
Dishonesty writ large.
How they can believe it's relevant or consistent escapes my limited intellect.
Charles Murray, a strong critic of postmodernism, defines the term:
"By contemporary intellectual fashion, I am referring to the constellation of views that come to mind when one hears the words multicultural, gender, deconstruct, politically correct, and Dead White Males. In a broader sense, contemporary intellectual fashion encompasses as well the widespread disdain in certain circles for technology and the scientific method. Embedded in this mind-set is hostility to the idea that discriminating judgments are appropriate in assessing art and literature, to the idea that hierarchies of value exist, hostility to the idea that an objective truth exists. Postmodernism is the overarching label that is attached to this perspective."
**The Six Tacit Tenants of the Postmodernist Left**:
Postmodernism offers to move beyond Habermas’ modernist narratives and is rapidly gaining currency throughout social and human science disciplines way into the 21st century (Powell, 2001). There are several themes that are shared in postmodern analysis, which consolidate Lyotard’s (1984) interpretation.
First, there is distrust in the concept of absolute and objective truth. ‘Truth’ is viewed as contextual, situational, and conditional (Biggs and Powell, 2001).
Second, emphasis is placed on fragmentation rather than universalism, again pushing away from the general and encompassing toward the particular (Powell, 2001).
Third, local power is preferred over the centralized power of the nation state, and the decentralization, or the process of democratization of power, is a pervasive theme of postmodern narratives (Mestrovic, 1994).
Fourth, reality is simulated but is otherwise not a very meaningful concept; reality conceived as a general and universal truth is profoundly doubted (Foucault, 1977).
Fifth, we are seeing the rise and consolidation of consumer culture that tends to put ‘power’ in the hands of the consumers, but can also equally manipulate consumers through marketing ploys and interpolating discourses of consumer freedom by dictating costs in global market place (Biggs and Powell, 2001).
Finally, diversity and difference is emphasized and valued above commonality based on homogeneity (Powell, 2001).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.