Obama: A Strategy of Crackpottery

Obama wants a full scale invasion of Afghanistan? I say give  Karzai the guns. Obama wants to redeploy the troops from Iraq into Afghanistan. You want to talk quagmire? You want a bloody mess? Ask the Soviets. And there's no oil there!

The last thing we should be doing is patching up the splits in Islam. We should be fomenting the internecine hatreds because we don't have the attention span and the wherewithal to eradicate Islamic supremacism.

The only strategy that will work is to forment the splits and get out of the way.

Once again, Obama proves he's worse than McCain.

You want a strategy to beat the Islamic scrouge? Read Jamie Glazov's excellent  The Demise of Islam? with Abul Kasem.

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Abul Kasem, an ex-Muslim who is the author of hundreds of articles and several books on Islam including, Women in Islam. He was a contributor to the book Leaving Islam – Apostates Speak Out as well as to Beyond Jihad: Critical Views From Inside Islam. He writes from Sydney, Australia and can be reached at nirribilli@gmail.com.

FP: We’re here today to discuss the potential demise of Islam and the fact that the Prophet Muhammad actually predicted this demise himself – a fact that sounds somewhat odd and that many are unaware of. What is the best way to start a discussion of this issue?

Kasem: Well, I would start by asking this question: could the current civilization ever imagine a world without Islam?

To many, this might sound like a dim-witted question. After all, Islam has been with us for fifteen hundred years. It just doesn’t even seem thinkable that Islam could possibly die out. Currently, after all, Islam is the raging storm afflicting every part of the world, especially with the mayhem of the Islamist terrorists and the escalating oil prices – and oil largely flows from a few Islamic lands. The leaders of the un-Islamic world are busy pleasing Islam in whatever manner. Even the United Nation’s Human Rights Organisation has just passed a resolution disallowing discussion of how Islam violates fundamental human rights in many Islamic paradises. In this context, it seems almost impossible to imagine a world free of Islam.

FP: Absolutely, and it is totally unrealistic to think that Islam will ever disappear.

Kasem: No. Despite the world situation that I just painted, what you say is not true at all.

FP: Please explain.

Kasem: We learn from the annals of Islamic history that Islam is not that powerful and that it is actually very vulnerable. Much evidence suggests that it may very well die under its own weight.

FP: Fair enough, please expand.

Kasem: There is a secret life of Islam and it may very well lead to the death of Islam. The history of Islam, for instance, tells us that Islam needs blood to thrive. Human blood is the life-line of Islam, violence its hallmark, and hate its foundation. In the beginning, Islam lives on the blood of infidels. When that is unavailable, or becomes difficult, Islam must cannibalize itself. As a car needs gasoline to run, so does Islam need human blood just to run its own course, set by Muhammad, its Prophet.

FP: Sounds very much like communism. It starts off extinguishing the “class enemy” and then when there are no more external “enemies” to slaughter, the killing machine turns on itself. Terror takes on a life of its own and the killing machine devours its own children and then ultimately engages in suicide. This totalitarian impulse ultimately stems from a death wish.

Kasem: Precisely. And so the demise of Islam is inherent in the very seed of Islamic cannibalism. And so to understand why Islam, eventually, will self-destruct we must first learn a few lessons from the annals of Islamic history. Let me briefly paint the picture:

During the last few decades we have witnessed Islamic cannibalism right, front and center. The most recent event was the Iran-Iraq war, in which millions of Muslims were killed, not by the infidels (kafirs) but by Muslims. Undoubtedly, in not-too-distant a future, we are bound to witness many such events of Islamic cannibalism.

FP: Is Islamic cannibalism theologically rooted?

Kasem: Absolutely. The earliest example of Islamic cannibalism, after all, is found in the Qur’an itself -- in verses 9:108-110. These verses refer to the gutting of a rival mosque on the instruction of Muhammad, when he was returning after his expedition to Tabuk, a resourceful town in the Syrian-Byzantine territory. This Islamic incursion story goes like this:

Proceeding further from Tabuk on his way to Medina, Muhammad halted at Dhu Awan at Quba (about 4 kms. from Medina), an hour’s journey from Medina. There, an opposition Muslim group had built a mosque. Previously, while Muhammad was making preparations for the march to Tabuk, this group of Muslims approached him and said, “O Messenger of God, we have built a mosque for the sick and needy and for rainy and cold nights, and we would like you to visit us and pray for us”(The History of al Tabari, vol.ix, p.61). Busy with his preparations for Tabuk expedition, Muhammad excused himself from visiting this newly-built mosque, but assured the dissident group that he would call on their mosque while returning to Medina (from Tabuk).

On his return journey from Tabuk and halting at Dhu Awan, Muhammad accused builders of this mosque of being unjust. Without any warning, he sent a band of jihadists to burn and destroy the freshly constructed mosque. He said to his band of hooligans, “Go to this mosque whose owners are unjust people and destroy and burn it” (ibid, p.61). His band of raging arsonists stealthily entered the bustling mosque and set fire to it when it was filled with people assembled for the evening prayer. The worshippers dispersed in utter terror. Allah promptly sent down verse 9:107, 110, justifying the destruction of opposition mosques. To further validate his gutting of this mosque, Muhammad concocted the story that he suspected that the builders of the ‘Mosque of Dissent’ were planning to assassinate him.

FP: So what is this story in the Qur’an teaching? What is its message?

Kasem: Those verses of the Qur’an, when taken in true Islamic spirit, can only mean one thing: the call for the devastation of rival mosques. The most important question is: which mosques are genuinely Islamic and which mosques are not so Islamic? Since there is no central authority in Islam to decide on this, it becomes a moot-point. It is, therefore, a free-market in Islam when it comes to destruction and bloodshed.

FP: The consequences?

Kasem: The consequences are obvious and inevitable: Sunnis are free to destroy Shia mosques; the Shias are permitted to destroy Sunni mosques; both these groups are free to destroy Ahmedi or Kurdish mosques, and so on. Within each group there are sub-groups and they are also entitled to commit such atrocities on other groups. This is exactly what is going on in almost all Islamic Paradises.

In Iraq, Sunnis are destroying Shia mosques and murdering them. In Pakistan, Sunnis are killing the Shias and burning their mosques. Then the Shias are avenging this by destroying Sunni mosques. In Bangladesh, both the Sunnis and the Shias are occupying Ahmedi mosques and setting them on fire. This musical chair of mosque-burning and killing is proceeding unabated, each group claiming they are the true Muslims. Each group is adamant they are absolutely following the Qur’an and Sunna (Muhammad’s deeds and examples), the two principal sources of Islam.

Interestingly, this fratricide is unstoppable, as the Islamic Ummah is far from monolithic. No one knows the precise divisions among the Ummah. But Muhammad had predicted that the Muslims will be divided into seventy-two sects, each one killing one another, and together killing the infidels.

FP: So Muhammad actually himself predicted this cannibalism with Islam itself? Give us the theological evidence.

Kasem: Yes he did. There are many ahadith that discuss Muhammad’s prediction about his Ummah. Let me give a few:

Seventy-two of the seventy-three Muslim sects will go to hell; only one of the sects will be in Paradise; it is the majority group…(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 3.40.4580)

Islam has seventy branches…(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 3.40.4659)

Whoever creates disunity in the Islamic community kill him…(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 3.40.4744)

In a note (footnote 4153), the English translator of Sunaan Abu Dawud, Professor Ahmad Hasan admits that it is permissible to ‘cannibalize’ dissident Islamic group/s. He writes: ‘The Prophet (may peace be upon him) did not tolerate disunity and schism among Muslims. Therefore, he ordered that, instead of causing separation and disagreement in the community, it is better to kill the person who causes disunity.’

Another hadis (Sunaan Abu Dawud, 40.4747, Sahih Bukhari, 4.55.577) asks to murder those Muslims who are insincere in their faith. This hadis even tells that Allah loves the Muslims who kill those insincere Muslims.

FP: Tell us a few major sects and sub-sects of Islam:

Kasem: Here are some of the main ones:

Sunnis: Hanafi, Shafii, Maliki, Hanbal

Sufis

Wahabis

Salafists

Submitters (Qur’an only Muslims)

Khilafites

Deobandis

Shia: Jaffri, Islamilia, Zaidiah, Yazdis

Ashariyahs

Alawis

Qadianis

Ahmedis

Druzes

Dawoodis

Bohras

Kharizis

Kurds

Needless to say, each group (and sub group) thinks they are the true Muslims, and only they have the right to practice Islam. Thus often, they cannibalize one another. There is no tolerance, compromise or truce among these groups.

FP: Tell us about a few more cases of Islamic cannibalism that were perpetrated during the nascent stages of Islam.

Kasem: Well, I mentioned the very first Islamic cannibalism mentioned in the Qur’an. Ever since then, the practice of killing Muslims by Muslims is truly endemic. During the time of Khulafa Rashedin (the rightly guided caliphs) this cannibalism took a serious turn, sparing not even the two last caliphs, ‘Uthman and Ali. Both of them were murdered by savage Islamic cannibals. Among these two cases of Islamic cannibalism, perhaps the murder of ‘Uthman stands out to be the most aghast. Here is how it was carried out, as described by Tabari (The History of al Tabari, volume xv, pp.219 220):

[..]

FP: So what do we conclude from what you have demonstrated here today?

Kasem: We can conclude that there is a certain ending to Islam and that those who wish for it do not necessarily need to do anything. All that is needed is to let it run its own course. It is bound to self-destruct, if we are to learn from the lessons of Islamic history. The un-Islamic world just needs to protect itself with strict security measures, never letting the various groups of Islam unite to kill the infidels. Once the infidels learn the secret life of Islam, it is simply a matter to watch how Islam implodes. Once the Islamic oil runs dry, once the world secures a reliable source of energy to replace oil, once the infidels stand together, and once the infidels become iron-resolute to contain Islam in their lands, Islam will die a natural death.

 

(read the rest of it here, now)

 

Comments

[ben]

My only quibble here would be to point out that Islam has been in the process of imploding from the very beginning. Within HOURS of the death of their prophet who supposedly preached unity and brotherhood, Mo's closest companions and advisors were turning on each other. Even the Arabs document that as historical fact. Kasem is absolutely right about Islam attacking Islam. The problem is, when the dust settles, it's still Islam. Someone is left alive at the end of the day, and that someone now credits Allah with his victory. Hoping that Muslim vs Muslim violence will bring about the end of Islam is a lot like hoping that the Allstar game will bring about the end of baseball.

Ben

[jj]

pamela/friends:

a most informative and interesting post.

i recommend to everyone a book authored by winston churchill, entitled "the river war."

it is the story of the british campaign up the nile to recapture the city of khartoum, in which a garrison commanded by lord gordon was slaughtered in a muslim uprising. it was a triumph of logistic and engineering, thoroughly modern military stuff.

it is also a captivating and perceptive view by churchill of the psychological dynamic that feeds muslim conquests, and highlights how formidible it can be when islam has its blood up. it is also churchill's wonderful appraisal, the lessens of which should not be lost upon moderns who oppose and fight the present day jihad, of just what works in defeating muslim blood lust, e.g., how to let the air out of the balloon of muslim fundamentalist aggression.

it is a very clear appraisal of the psychologies involved, and of the spiritual matters at issue.

all in all, a wonderful book, as interesting now as the day it was written.

john jay
milton freewater, oregon usa

[Dale in Atlanta]

Barack HUSSEIN Obama (PBUH)(SWT)(SAW)

[Razdan]

I fully agree with Ben here. I think it is naive to think that Islam will implode on its own... it probably can and will but not before inflicting tremendous pain to all of us (as it has since it's inception). The rest of the non-muslim world MUST provide the initial push for this implosion to be able to take place.

[EJO]

Dear Pamela;
I'll admit that reading this article was pleasing. But, I will refrain from doing the Snoopy Supper Time Dance at this time. Islam, with all of it's faults, has already been around for fourteen centuries. You, and I, and all of our friends will probably be dead for another fourteen hundred years, before this religion of hatred, intolerance, and violence comes to it's end.
Now if they could speed things up a bit, like by this weekend, that would nice.
Sincerely;
EJO

P.S. Thanks for the hat tip.

[USorThem]

Ben and Razdan

I don't think you see the beauty of Kasem's theory. Yes Islam will remain Islam, but, if the theory is correct, then it would remain Islam for Muslims only, with the threat of global jihad against the West greatly diminished.

Razdan says Islam will not implode before it inflicts great cost to all of us? How so? How will muslims battling each other inflict harm on all of us? I won't lose an ounce of sleep knowing muslims are cannabilizing themselves.

Hugh Fitzgerald at JihadWatch has pointed out many times how the Iraq-Iran War was a good thing for infidels because the end result of that war was the weakening of two Islamic armies, at no cost to infidel nations. Fitzgerald has also pointed out how leaving Iraq on its own will naturally lead to internecine fighting that will weaken the "Camp of Islam". Kasem's and Fitzgerald's theories seem to go hand-in hand.

Pam says: "We should be formenting the intercine (sic) hatreds because we don't have the attention span and the wherewithal to eradicate Islamic supremacism."

I agree with this but, I wonder, do you not think that this applies to Iraq? It would not take much to foment those hatreds, particularly in Iraq. Just pull up and go home and watch the fireworks begin. Sounds like a plan to me.

[neverforget]

If we want them to just kill each other, which I do, then we better get them out of the West.

[pythagoras]

"Islam will die a natural death."

Sweeter words were never spoken! And may they come true--soon!!

[yonason]

The only strategy that will work is to forment the splits and get out of the way.

I LOVE it!!!!