Cultural Relativism is a numbing intellectual bankruptcy embraced by the left meant to prevent people from independent thought, a tool of the Neo-Fascist dogma of Political Correctness with the purpose of suppressing peoples own moral compass which is needed for the left-wing policies in including barbarism preventing individuals in making a value judgment which the left need to pursue their own sinister political agendas and sick ideas of social engineering experiments sacrificing the individual and destroying the ethical principles in the process – Bill Warner - An Ethical Basis for War Against Political Islam: Part 1
Know the Enemy—Sun Tsu, The Art of War
Islam claims that all who do not submit are kafirs (unbelievers). A kafir is hated by Allah and Allah plots against the kafir. Over 60% of the Koran is devoted to the kafir. A kafir may be killed, robbed, raped, enslaved, tortured and mocked. Every mention of the kafir is negative, demeaning, insulting and hurtful. Unbeliever is a neutral word. Kafir is the worst word in the human language.
The second word we need is dhimmi. The original dhimmis were Christians and Jews who got to keep their religion, but lived in a totally Islamic culture. Today a dhimmi is a kafir who apologizes for Islam.
The story of Islam starts with the Jews since Islam is a Jewish heresy. The Koran endlessly adapts Jewish stories such as those of Moses and Noah to show that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah. The Ten Commandments is a good place to start looking at Islam.
Ten Commandments—Religious
Do not have any other gods before Me.
Do not make an image or any likeness of Me
Do not swear falsely by the name of the Lord.
Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy
Ten Commandments—Ethical
Honor your father and your mother
Do not murder
Do not commit adultery.
Do not steal.
Do not bear false witness against your neighbor
Do not covet your neighbor’s property.
They fall into two categories—religious and ethical. The only religion that follows all the religious commandments is that of the Jews. Christians do not follow the Sabbath commandment and some would argue that the Catholics and Orthodox sects use images and violate the image commandment. Hindus, Buddhists and atheists don’t follow any of the religious commandments. There are no two religions that agree on the Ten Commandments.
Humanity can not agree on religion.
But let’s look at the ethical commandments. Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and most atheists agree that lying, theft, murder, sanctity of family, and lusting after other people’s property is bad behavior.
Upon reflection, all of these prohibitions prevent harm to others. We don’t harm others and we don’t want to be harmed. We all want to be treated well and this is the best way to treat others, hence the Golden Rule:
Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.
The Golden Rule is an ethic of unity. Everyone is treated the same. One ethical system for all people. This has been said in many ways in many cultures. But there is one doctrine that does not agree with these ethics—Islam.
Islamic Ethics
What are Islamic ethics and where do we find them? Everything in Islam is based upon the Koran (what Mohammed said that his god, Allah, said) and the words and deeds of Mohammed (called the Sunna). A Muslim repeats endlessly, “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.” The Koran repeats again and again that Mohammed is the model or pattern for the ideal Muslim. A Muslim is not someone who worships Allah. A Muslim is someone who worships Allah exactly like Mohammed worshipped Allah. So every Muslim is a Mohammedan. There are absolutely no exceptions.
And where do we find Mohammed’s words and deeds?
1. The Traditions (or Hadith) are collections of everything Mohammed did and said. The best and most honored Hadith is by Al Bukhari.
2. The Sira is the biography of Mohammed and is written by Ibn Ishaq. The Sira is to Mohammed as the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are to Jesus.
There was not enough information in the Koran to create Islam. The Sunna (Hadith and Sira) define almost all of the doctrine of Islam.
The collection of Koran, Sira, and Hadith is called the Islamic Trilogy. The Trilogy contains the complete political doctrine of Islam. Christians have two sacred texts—Old and New Testament. Muslims have three sacred texts. For 1400 years, all three of these texts have only been read by Islamic religious and political leaders, but today these texts are easily understood.
The Trilogy overflows with ethical statements. (These are all from the Bukhari’s Hadith)
Bukhari 9,85,83 Mohammed: “A Muslim is a brother to other Muslims. He should never oppress them nor should he facilitate their oppression.”
Bukhari 8,73,70 Mohammed: “Harming a Muslim is an evil act; killing a Muslim means rejecting Allah.”
Bukhari 5,59,369 Mohammed asked, “Who will kill Ka’b (a Jewish poet), the enemy of Allah and Mohammed?”
Bin Maslama rose and responded, “O Mohammed! Would it please you if I killed him?”
Mohammed answered, “Yes.”
Bin Maslama then said, “Give me permission to deceive him with lies so that my plot will succeed.”
Mohammed replied, “You may speak falsely to him.”
A Muslim should be a brother to other Muslims (not the rest of humanity). A Muslim should not kill another Muslim. A Muslim may lie to kafirs to advance Islam.
So for Islam the ethical statements are:
Do not kill another Muslim
Do not steal from another Muslim
Do not deceive another Muslim
Islam states that a kafir can be killed, robbed, raped and deceived if it will advance Islam. A Muslim does not have to lie, cheat or kill a kafir, it is an ethical option.
Islam divides the entire world into Islam and kafirs and has two sets of ethics, one for Islam and another for the rest. The Golden Rule has the equality of all humanity as its basis. It is not: Do unto some people, as you would have them do unto you, but do unto all people as you would have them do unto you.
Islam denies the universality of the Golden Rule because Islam starts with the division of the entire world, all humanity, into two different groups—Islamic and non-Islamic. Every aspect of Islamic ethics is based upon this separation. Having two distinct groups leads to two different ethical codes. Said another way, Islam has dualistic ethics.
Deceit, violence and force are optional actions against the kafirs. Believers are to be treated as brothers and sisters. Islam’s ethics are based upon:
Good is whatever advances Islam.
Evil is whatever resists Islam.
copyright (c) 2008, CBSX, Inc dba politicalislam.com
You may distribute this as you wish, please do not edit and give us credit.
6 comments:
Hi all, if you want to celebrate British Islam, come to this event:
http://www.livingislam.co.uk
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3S9L9S6WQDo
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ1JYrU9kXM&feature=related
Thanks
According to the article Islamic ethics are
"Good is whatever advances Islam.
Evil is whatever resists Islam."
This is very similar to racist ethics
"What ever is good for the white race is good. What ever is bad for the white race is evil."
So unfortunately Islam is not the only ideology with dualist ethics, its just the most widespread.
Also about PC and Multiculturalism, they may be bad ideas but I don't see them as starting out just as a way getting people to stop thinking, although that's what they have accomplished. From what I understand they started largely as a way of promoting tolerance and understanding, but by their very nature, they created the opposite.
I think that PC and cultural relativism are largely a negative side effects of the civil rights movement. Too few people to stood up for fear of being seen as racists.
The paragraph that reads "Islam denies the universality of the Golden Rule because...ethics" is flawed nearly all the way through. However, before we take it appart, let's look closely at just a portion of the political cartoon, "The Real Suicide Bomb".
"So what? Who are we to judge?", crows the multicultural conniver.
You should need no more than a few moments to realize that not only does the multiculti attempt to paralyze his companion's thinking with guilty feelings but also he makes use of a stolen concept, a double standard, and a fallacious appeal to authority. The guilt trip is an obvious trick, so his second question, "who are we...?", can be swatted away immediately on this basis alone, as one must do when encountering such a person on campus, in the office, or elsewhere. Presumably you'll do so yourself with enough force to stagger the perp while you collect your thoughts for the next counteroffensive.
Perhaps less obvious is the fact that the conniver employs a stolen concept. He tries to reject the principle of judging the character and behavior of others but cannot do so without employing that very same principle. He would have had to save hisself from this connundrum if multiculti #2, the frumpy lady, hadn't rushed to his rescue with another guilt trip and by asserting implicitly via a question the principle that one may licitly judge one's own culture yet not that of another. Apparently it does not occur to her that the cultures of the perplexed inquirer and of any antimuliticulti friend he has are not her own culture--not even when those cultures are colocated with her own as the Muslims' culture has become in Europe and N. America--and as such the culture of judgementality and antimulticulturalism is immune from her criticizm according to multiculturalism's own standards. Not even her judgement of arrogance follows, for superiority is not synonymous with perfection and neither implies nor entails perfection. Her flawed standard would require that we judge a DA or AG, too, arrogant for prosecuting Muslims involved in the Islamic conspiracy to extort, to terrorize, to kill, etc.
Unfortunately multiculti #1, our mustachioed friend, still is not finished. He tries to arrogate entirely to his own self the exclusive privilege of judging the character and behavior of others as he must do if he is to quash successfully the anxious inquirer's suspicion and question. (Clearly the multiculti lady does not agree that he alone has this right.) In fact, the question "who are we to judge?" is a naked appeal to authority, as if some status other than the ability to use reason and a primitive knowledge of ethics were required to pass judgement on the Enwrapped One.
At least this crowd has produced a poignant question, "what if he's an Islamist?". Unfortunately, multiculti #1 jumped the gun when he demanded justification, for the appropriate reply is "what's the definition of an Islamist?".
The answer is suggested by Koran 9:122 where the reader learns that not all Muslims can go out to fight; some Muslims must stay home to study Islam while the others are terrorizing (8:60), fighting (9:123), killing (9:5), and so on. It so happens that the greatest honor and reverence in Islam are reserved for Muslims who are Islamists, i.e. for terrorizers, fighters, and killers who die during such endeavors.
Now, let's make quick work of the paragraph mentioned earlier, after which it should be clear that multiculturalism is just one stick of dynamite hidden beneath the bomber's cloak, and that not only leftists are responsible for wiring the bomb...
It reads that "Islam denies the universality of the Golden Rule because Islam starts with the division of the entire world, all humanity, into two different groups—Islamic and non-Islamic."
C'mon now, have we not learned to refrain from abusing the word "because" while keeping the "cause" in "because"? What you assert is that the Islamic division of all humans into two disjoint sets caused the Islamic denial of the Golden Rule. However, even the Xians and the Buddhists divide the world into two camps, but that alone didn't cause them to reject the GR. Indeed, "[h]aving two distinct groups" did not lead each group "to two different ethical codes", one for insiders and another for outsiders. So if the division is a cause, then it's not alone sufficient to cause abandonment of the GR.
It would be more plausible to claim that the Muslims' double standard for ethics is correlated with the rejection of the GR or even that the act of setting up a double standard is itself the act, or part of the act, of rejecting the GR which in any case the nonliteralist understands is not an immutable prescription of behavior but a way to cultivate empathy among selfish beings whose ability to use reason is limited. Taken literally the GR would sanction perverse behavior like that of masochists who relish the infliction of pain, thus the value of the GR is stictly limited and not universal in the way you would like to suppose.
The trouble with your thinking may be that you confused the cause of Muslim's entirely rejecting the GR with the manner in which you wrongly inferred how they did so.
So what's "The Real Suicide Bomb"? It's irrationality, such as that cultivated everyday by millions of antiislamists who crave a unified, Judeochristian West. Alert people recognize Jesus as the self-aggrandizing lowlife that he his. Like Mohammed, he solicitied homicide, but worse, he tried to equate the GR with the Jewish law and prophets. Of course, the Jewish law includes unwarranted superstition plus malice and despotism (Dt. 17 comes to mind), so it doesn't work.
Post a Comment