Religion of Peace

Daniel Greenfield
Sultan Knish
04 August '10

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

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

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

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

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

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Is it Muslim Rage or its Causes that Threatens Us?

Daniel Greenfield
Sultan Knish
23 March '10

The debate over how to handle Islamic terrorism essentially comes down to those who advocate managing Islam in order to control its propensity for violence, and those who believe that instead we should be managing anything and everything that might provoke Muslim rage.

While controlling violence by managing Islam is the logical and direct approach, the weight of the establishment in numerous countries has come down on the side of suppressing all things that might provoke Muslim rage. This disturbing position expresses itself in numerous ways, whether it was the censorship of the Mohammed cartoons, the ongoing attempt to blame Israel for attacks on US troops, or the entire grand theory of the left which blames all Muslim violence on the domestic and foreign policies of their targets.

Given the choice between blaming the criminal for his crimes, or his victims for having provoked him-- the political and cultural elites of the very countries targeted for terror have chosen to turn the blame inward. They have placed their sordid faith in the belief that the best way to manage Islamic rage, is by relentlessly appeasing and avoiding any provocations that might cause it to flare up.

This phenomenon is often seen in abuse victims who have to cope with their abuser's enraged violence. By accepting responsibility for being the cause of his anger, they make it seem controllable and predictable. Their coping mechanism is to blame themselves, rather than face the real problem, which is that they live together with a violent and dangerous individual, who will sooner or later kill them. This is the relationship between the West and Islam.

The victim accepts the abuser's narrative that he is a good and decent person, unless provoked. So too the civilized world accepts Islam's narrative that it is the Religion of Peace, and that it is peaceful, unless it is provoked. By accepting the enemy's narrative, the victim accepts the blame for his blows and assaults, and comes to feel that controlling the abuser's rage is their duty. So too the civilized world accepts that Islamic terrorism is its fault, and that it must "behave better" in order to avoid future blowups. Meanwhile the smallest requests of the Muslim world that it behave better are met with outrage and anger, much as the abuser explodes into a rage at any insinuation that he has an anger management problem.

(Read full article)
.