OK – I have been avoiding commenting on the happenings in the Muslim world lately.
That is because I feel like a Cassandra…
And it’s only going to get worse.
Much worse!
There is a guide as to how a country will be affected by Islam based on what percentage of the population is Muslim. The lower the percentage, the more easy-going and moderate the Muslim population is. As the percentage increases, so does the aggressiveness of the messages being preached in Mosques and so does the aggressiveness of Muslim’s demand for accommodation and eventually for the supremacy of their way of life. I have seen it in many variations at different places, but here is one scale that is typcial:
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will — for the most part — be regarded as a
peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens.
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities
and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and
among street gangs.
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to
their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the
introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing
food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on
supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with
threats for failure to comply.
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow
them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic
Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the
entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase
lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we
are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and
results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition
to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen
daily.
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad
militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian
churches and Jewish synagogues.
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror
attacks, and ongoing militia warfare.
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers
of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic
ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya,
the tax placed on infidels.
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some
state-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations
drive out the infidels, and move toward 100%.
100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House
of Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a
Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only
word.
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the
most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood
lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
This is true – more or less, let’s put our political correctness in its place and face reality for a while – within individual countries.
Currently, the World Muslim population is at over 20 percent – and climbing fast…because uneducated and subjegated women tend to have way more children than educated, emancipated women do. And, because we stil don’t protect children from being brainwashed into their parents’ religious prejudices…
So, keep in mind the 20% description:
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad
militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian
churches and Jewish synagogues.
Please, keep this in mind when you consider world events these days:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqO4ToLIWPo&feature=colike
And that is why I have not really been commenting on current events…
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 
September 14, 2012 at 10:51
Is counting Muslims a past time of yours? What is your most favoured policy for decreasing the percentage of Muslims in various countries? Should we be rounding up and deporting the Muzzies amongst us now so that the total doesn’t reach 20%? Should we be requiring that teh Muzzies wear yellow crescents so that they are more easily identified by non-terrorist Canadians?
Xanthippa says:
You ask how to reduce the percentage of Muslims in various countries: by educating all children.
This works for all religions: the more literate a population is, the lower the religiosity usually falls.
I am a strong proponent of freedom of religion – and think that we must ensure that all children are educated in comprative religions from a very young age specifically in order that they can choose their religious views freely, without undue influence from their parents.
As to wearing distinctive clothing to designate a person’s religion: that was a Muslim invention, when they conquered Spain. All Christians and Jews were required to wear belts which identified which dhimmi religion they belonged to. It’s kind of funny that you should raise this point…
September 14, 2012 at 12:57
Your support of fascist politicians like Geert Wilders who explicitly argue for the removal of the protection of freedom of religions from Muslims seems to be at odds with your above statement. So you support freedom of religion….. except in the cases when you don’t.
September 14, 2012 at 17:12
Silence….. exactly. I guess thinking of yourself as someone who supports fundamental freedoms makes you feel good about yourself. Though, of course, what is more important is actually supporting fundamental freedoms.
September 14, 2012 at 14:34
btw….. who would you support to design the curriculum on Islam for your comparative religion courses? Pamela Geller maybe? Ratko Mladic?
Xanthippa says:
I think that there are many excellent experts on comparative religion out there. When I took sociology and anthropology of religion courses (not my major, but all my electives…), there were many professors who would qualify.
However, even if the course in comparative religions were designed in such a way that each religion’s section got written by the adherents of that religion, perhaps its religious leaders, I would not object – as long as they were all embedded in one course and presented by a teacher who did not exalt one above the others or put one down. It is only preaching one religion to kids that I oppose.
I am deeply convinced that exposing children to many religious points of view – from an early age – is the best way for them to make an informed choice later in life – and the only way to ensure they truly choose their religion freely.
For example, I am an archetypal polytheist (which means that I think that what people call ‘gods’ are really just archetypes embeded within various social contexts which were tools for teaching life strategies). Yet, when they wished, I have taken my kids to churches – even a pentacostal one – as well as to pagan rituals/festivals, a synagogue, a Hindu temple, some Buddhist ceremonies, and so on. No, I have not taken them to a Mosque – but that is because when I went, everything was spoken in Arabic, a language they don’t understand. However, I do ask them to read the Koran itself (though they only read the English translation). We have several translations ranging from the Saudi-approved one to scholarly one with anthropological explanations (as well as the Arabic original) at home. Neither one of my sons shares my religious views – and I consider that a success, because they are making their own choices.
It is precisely in being able to compare the various religious teachings – as they are believed by their adherents – to each other which I think is key in ensuring religious freedom.
After all, if you are ignorant of something, how can you choose it as your belief system?
September 14, 2012 at 22:35
i still believe radical muslims are a minority. though a country with 20% muslim is 10 times more likely to produce radicals than a 2% muslim country
Xanthippa says:
I quite agree.
However, the radicals have the dogma on their side.
Since the penalty for apostasy is death, the moderate Muslims fear becoming the first victims of the orthodox minority.
Thus, the militant, orthodox minority controls the Umma.
We are all born with all kinds of predispositions. The environment we are raised in either reinforces or suppresses the development of these predispositions.
A tribal society reinforces/suppresses different aspects of a person’s predispositions (potentials) than the ‘Western’ society. This includes how information is processed and what are considered socially appropriate expressions of ‘things’. Ideas, emotions, reactions. Those kinds of things.
In all tribal societies, the ‘us’ vs ‘them’ perspective is central. This is because in our past, that was evolutionally necessary for survival. But the side-effect of this is that in many tribal societies, the moderates tend to be cowed by the more radical elements – especially if the ‘us vs. them’ minset is lethally enforced: in this situation, dissent is not just a matter of personal opinion but becomes a deep betrayal of ‘the family/clan/tribe’… the Ummah means ‘the Islamic tribe’…
This dynamic is exploited in Islam to a very high degree.
The moderate minority will not be a problem if we can adequately protect them from the radical minority. But, we lack the tools to distinguish between them – much less protect them.
If we – as a society – lack the tools to distinguish – how can we know who poses danger to us and who does not?
One way is to get to know individual Muslims: then, we can, perhaps (depending on our social skills), know whom to trust because those who will reciprocate honest frienshiip with us as individuals are obviously good people. But personal knowledge of individuals is not scalable to society as a whole.
And fear is a powerful tool of control…
This poses us great difficulty.
I don’t know the solution.
I don’t know if a ‘fair’ solution is even possible.
But that does not diminish the danger our society faces: it is existential, real and immediate.
We may not be at war with Islam, but a large segment of the Ummah believes itself to be at war with us – or is cowed into behaving as if they believed it.
So, where do we go from that?
How do we protect our children?
On both sides?
The killing of an ambassador is an act of war.
Whether we like it or not, World War 3 has started.
September 16, 2012 at 12:07
I do wonder what is the difference between Christianity and Islam, they are the same falsehoods, So I do wonder what accounts for the difference. Perhaps maybe it is development, as the middle east is 1000 years behind.
Where do we go?
1. No more humanitarian wars/missions in the middle eastern countries, or in general.
2. With exception to global stability concerns, no more western-backed coups, as the rebels are often worse than the establishment.
3. Nuclear energy. The west needs to get over its phobia of an actual safe energy system that works. As long as the west depends on oil, it will be submissive to the middle east.
I think the west should wait until the Islamic world develops until we give them our “help”.
Xanthippa says:
Agreed.
As for the steps, that is.
As for the difference between the two religions – it is complex.
I have long thought that the stage of develoment may have something to do with it. And, perhaps it does. But the more I learn about Sharia, the less I tend to hold this view.
You have to remember Muhammad’s history.
He grew up without a father – and this, in the patriarchal tribal society of then Arabia was a serious handicap. He went back and forth between his mother’s and father’s tribes – but had a hard time being accepted as an equal member in both, especially after his mother died.
So, he left and joined a Christian community – and conberted to their brand of Christianity. Not the form that became prevalent in Europe, not even the Coptic form. From what anthropologists had pieced together (back in the 80’s, before this type of historical research became forbidden), it was a semi-gnostic form of Christianity. One of the ones that did not believe that Jesus was the son of God and that a substitute took Jesus’s place on the cross. And, yes – there were, back then, sects of Christians who believed that.
Muhammed, however, had difficulty fitting into that society as well and eventually left.
Rather than going home, he joined a group of Jewish traders who were travellers, rather than being settled in one specific area (at least, that is what I was taught in the University course I took in the 80’s). Again, he converted. Again, he could not fit in and left after a relatively short period of time.
His uncle took him in. This is when he became a stableboy to the rich widow Khadifa, who married him. This is in Medina. She became convinced he was the Messenger of God and convinced the illiterate Mohammad of this. (By the way, Khadifa had previously believed that one of her male cousins was the Messenger of God, too.)
Thus, the religion of Islam was founded.
While in Medina, Muhammad preached the monotheism he had learned from the Christians and the Jews – but he wanted his message to be better. He also wanted to avoid the sectarianism that was rampant within Christianity and also within Judaism back then.
Now, there is an important bit of Christian and Jewish dogma (Muhammad actually thought they were different sects of the same religion) that struck him: it is about Abraham and his two sons and his heritage. Abraham’s Jewish wife Sarah could not have kids, so she offered him her Arab slave girl to father a child on. It worked. But, then Sarah got pregnant and also had a boy.
In the Jewish laws back then, this was a problem: the firstborn son’s mother is the main wife – but Sarah was the main wife and most of the wealth belonged to her – Abraham had just sort of married into her clan/money. Also, the oldest son(=main wife’s son) inherits. But here the equals was broken.
Hagar, the Arab slave, could not displace Sarah, but what about the kids?
Abraham solved the problem by abandoning Hagar and her infamt son in the desert to die. No more contradiction in law and his meal ticket was safe….except that Hagar had somehow made it back and he could not get away with another attempt at murder.
So, he decided that his older son – Hagar’s – would be his heir. When it came time to give the blessing (on his deathbed – he was blind at the time), Sarah used trickery to substitute her own son in place of Hagar’s. So, Abraham blessed Sarah’s son (from whom Jews are said to be descended) and Hagar’s son (from whom Arabs are said to be descended) got nothing. It was a public ceremony and could not be undone…
Many Arabs are still trying to ‘right’ this wrong and believe that their honour will not be restored until every descendant of Sarah’s son is killed. That is the source of anti-Semitism in the Koran.
You have to understand tribal culture in order to get how this can survive till today. Not just Arabic tribal culture – all of them are based on similar mindsets, even if details differ.
So, back to Muhammad.
In Medina, he preached for years and got around 10 new converts per year. This is when the more peaceful and conciliatory parts of the Koran come from.
As his followers grew, he became bolder and bolder, until he finally offended the religious pagans in Medina by being so intolerant of their religion that they kicked him out.
That is when he went to Mecca, where his paternal grandfather ran a major pagan pilgrimage site: that big black rock cube thingy Muslims worship to this day.
In Mecca, he had no way of making money so he became a then-equivalent of a highway robber. His coreligionists took part in this because Allah had revealed to Mohammed that only Muslims have property rights and that therefore taking things from non-Muslims is not theft, but a righteous act if they intend to use those things to futher Allah’s cause.
Sure, Christianity had a similar thing – when someone was found guilty of witchcraft, all of their possessions became the property of the church, which became very wealthy indeed hunting down witches. So, the parallel is there, but it is imperfect because at this time, the Church WAS the authority in charge while Mohammed still wasn’t.
However, in this period, he attracted many more converts, mostly from the ranks of robbers. (Even now, Islam follows the same pattern of trying to recruit heavily within the jails of non-conquered lands. It is following Mohammed’s example.)
The more his military strength grew, the more militant were his preachings, the more militarily skilled were his converts and the more converts he got. No longer was he getting 10 new ones a year – now, hundreds and hundreds were joining. We are talking here different demographic – and he tailored the message to them in order to maintain control.
And Muhammad was indeed one of the greatest military minds of all times, on par with Alexander the Great.
But he also understood that the sword is not enough to hold a society together.
That is why, quite explicitly, he forbade the division between religion and politics.
In Christianity, again, there is a parallel – like in heaven, so on Earth, but in the Christian tradition there is also a counter-story: give onto Cesar that which is Cesar’s and give onto God that which is God’s. That had been used by Christians during the reformation as the justification for the separation of Church and State. So, this could be done without the Christians believing they were committing sin by separating the two.
There is nothing like that in Islam. To the contrary, Muhammad specifically forbade this separation on the grounds that laws ‘from man’ are a form of oppression and that laws may only come from God (through him, of course).
Thus, the separation of Mosque and State is a violation of one of the explicit religious commandments that Muhammad gave.
Which makes it very difficult for Muslims to separate the Mosque and State and still remain Muslim.
Islam defines ‘human rights’ to be the right to live free from the oppression of the laws of men and only under the law of God: Sharia.
You can see the problems this poses.
And just like North Korea explains the humanitarian aid the West sends them as a tribute we are paying because we recognize the superiority of their semi-divine leader, so do many Muslims understand the aid we provide them to be jizyia: the tax non-Muslims pay to Muslims in recognition of their own submission and acknowledgment of the superiority of Islam. Even here, in Canada, I was talking with a Muslim parent of one of my kids classmates and he was shocked to hear that non-Muslims also can receive welfare payments here. When he immigrated here, he was told at his Mosque that the welfare payments were jizyia, that it was his due and that he was not supposed to work, only further Islam.
He is a smart man, a good person and had been a math teacher before he came here and was shocked at how easily he had been manipulated by his religious leaders here, in Canada…
You see just how deep the problem is rooted.
September 17, 2012 at 18:32
It was a long read, though I did read it all twice, and it’s very informative. Definitely, both Christianity and Islam have a sort of militance to it (though yeah, Islam, at least on a traditional fundamental seems to be more militant).
Though it both relates in the sense that both abrahamic religion have strong undercurrents of violence and male dominance (as do neanderthals), and people who are religious have to make an important decision. If you support your religion literally, you are supporting slavery, rape and a host of other rephrehensible things. If you don’t take your religion literally, then it’s purely symbolic.
I rarely get involved in religious discussions nowadays, but on Facebook I saw many people saying that the Innocence of Muslims filmmakers could have prevented the death of the ambassador in Libya by not putting out that film, saying that all hate speech should be banned, and that just flared me up, and in the past few years it has been very rarely that I let religion anger me.
Why accomodate hostile nuerotic terrorists? “I want you to censor your speech or we will kill people” Why would we accept those demands? And to blame the film makers for this? When KKK members said they would burn down churches, did civil rights organizations pack their bags and go home? No. It’s no different from I mean, if a woman walks out late at night and wears a flattering dress, is it her fault for being raped? Should we give her a curfew? No! It’s the rapists faults; we don’t need to accomodate the rapists and we don’t need to accomodate terrorists either.
Xanthippa says:
Agreed.
We know from history that appeasement does not work but is actively counterproductive.
I wrote my today’s post before I read this – but I think it uses different examples to get the same point accross.
Moreover, people have been strongly disagreeing with me on this, because I want hate speech to stay legal. Harassment, threats, and confidentiality violation are reasonable exceptions because there are specific parameters that define them, they are objective, and they protect ALL people no matter what color their skin is or what church they belong to. Hate speech, is only words that certain people vehemently disagree with. Which could be anyone’s speech.
September 17, 2012 at 10:45
“One way is to get to know individual Muslims: then, we can, perhaps (depending on our social skills), know whom to trust because those who will reciprocate honest frienshiip with us as individuals are obviously good people. But personal knowledge of individuals is not scalable to society as a whole.”
Newsflash – If individual Muslims don’t reciprocate honest friendships with you, it is much more likely because your are a fanatical bigot rather than them being Islamists.
Xanthippa says:
Or, perhaps because the Koran specifically forbids Muslims from being friends with non-Muslims. Look it up.
When a Muslim puts people above religion – they can and will make good friends. And, yes, I do know some and am very proud to have them for friends.
It is those people who happen to be Muslim and who also put religion above people who will obey that command who tend to also be pro-Sharia Muslims, i.e. Islamists.
Education, education, education…
September 17, 2012 at 13:38
So when a Muslim doesn’t want to be friends with you – an anti-Muslim bigot who routinely links to some of the most vicious anti-Muslim extremists writing today – it is for the sole reason that their religion commands them to not be friends with you and not at all because you write as if all Muslims are primitive subhumans. Riiiiiiiiiight.
You have a hilarious persepctive of “education” (education = finding the most extreme anti-Muslim bigots to teach you about the tenants of Islam). When you want to learn about Jewish theology, do you break out some old Julius Streicher writtings?
Xanthippa says:
Did you actually read what I wrote?
I would be perfectly comfortable for the section on Islam to be crafted by Muslim leaders, Christianity by Christian leaders, Judaism by Jewish leaders, Hindu section by Hindu leaders, Sikh section by Sikh leaders – and so on and so on and so on, as long as ALL the religions in the world were included and these sections were all embeded in one course and presented by an impartial teacher. Of course, in higher grades, all the sects of the various religions would get to submit at least a little blurb to represent them – and this would have to include the small and unpopular sects, as well.
Oh, what a bigted concept: letting all religions present their dogma in their own words to our young and letting them choose freely what they wish to believe!
September 17, 2012 at 18:16
Sammy. Xanthippa, nor myself, are bigots. We don’t assume the worst of anyone simply because they are muslim, as bigots reject groups as a whole, whereas we are simply rejecting the minority of muslims who take their religion extremely and literally. And those people are destructive enough to necessitate further examination to this.
What’s even worse is that condescending attitude of liberals (and no, i’m not a republican conservative) that claims to want equality for muslims yet sees them as such delicate subhuman creatures that we have to be extra-sensitive to, or they’ll become hostile and primitive. Equality means that NO group of people is too high and mighty (or vulnerable and protected) to take a verbal gutshot every now and then.
September 18, 2012 at 11:16
Derek, I don’t know you enough to say whether I think you are a bigot or not. But I have read enough of Xanthippa to know that she certainly is.
And no, I don’t believe that any Muslim will become hostile and primitive because people like Xanthippa are gross bigots. The fact that you think that shows you don’t have the slightest idea what liberals think. However, it is most certainly true that people who live in atmospheres of bigotry and hatred against them are affected by it. Why would that not be true? And Xanthippa supports some of the most vile bigots writting today and routinely praises people who advoctate for direct and explicit government discrimination against Muslims based entirely on their religions affiliation with no consideration given to their individual beliefs.
So basically you think that people should be silent in the face of advocacy for open state discrimination against minorities. And that if people speak up against bigotry and hatred, that means they think the targets of that bigotry are somehow subhumans. You said that “Equality means that NO group of people is too high and mighty (or vulnerable and protected) to take a verbal gutshot every now and then.” Doesn’t equality actually mean equal treatment of people under the law? That is what I support. I have not heard Xanthippa herself state that Muslims should be treated differently under the law, but she actively supports many people who do. She thinks Blazing Cat Fur, who advocates for state discrimination against Muslims in immigration is a humanitarian. She supports politicians like Geert Wilders who want to criminalize the practice of Islam althogether. She supports fascists like Pamela Geller who want to remove Islam from the protection of freedom of religion so that mosque construction can be banned. It is the height of hypocracy to say that you are for equality and for freedom fo religion and for freedom fo speech, and then spend all your time promoting bigots who advocate for exactly the opposite of that.
But I guess saying that Muslims shouldn’t be discriminated against by the state implies that I think they are delicate subhumans, right derek?
Xanthippa says:
Sammy, sweetie, you are forgetting that it is mostly Muslims who are demanding special rights, above those afforded to the rest of us.
I have never suggested that Muslims should be treated any differently than any other individuals. EVER! What I do reject is the idea that religious groups ought to enjoy ‘special’ rights – groups do not have rights, only individuals do. I reject that ‘religions’ should enjoy rigiths – rights are not for groups (or, for that matter, corporations – rights are for individuals and individuals alone!
Most definitely, I do not believe that children are the property of their parents and I demand that their human rights, including the right to freedom of religion, must be respected – something that cannot happen if early childhood indoctrination into one religious dogma occurs. But, I demand this for ALL religions, not just Islam!
I am on the record as saying that Churches who hire empoyees – including priests – must obey the non-discrimination bit of labour laws that demands that they not be permitted to ask about the religious beliefs of the applicants…..Mosques and all other temples that pay people to preach fall into the same category as far as I am concerned!
I extend this to all the religious schools, too – it’s there, on the record. I have openly demanded that religious schools should not be able to know an applicant’s religion before hiring them.
As a matter of fact, I doubt that you will find anyone more consistent in these demands than I am. Across ALL religions!
I recognize that not just Islam, but ALL religions are, to a lesser or greater extent, political ideologies. Therefore, I do demand that ALL religions be treated as no more than just another ideology. Sure, Islam is the one I focus more on when I comment because the demands coming from the Muslims within our society are so much more loud and insistent (and indompatible with our legal system) – and backed up by actual violence – that that is the front line which we are forced to face. But what I am demanding for Islam, I am demanding for ALL religions!
Sammy, because of my outspoken criticism of the Orwellian-ly-called ‘Human Rights Commissions’, their minions monitor my site, regularly. I know because their electronic signature shows up on my list of visitors. If I were what you are accusing me of, I would have been charged by them a long time ago…
I am not a bigot – everything I say is demonstrably true. Perhaps you might do well to stop projecting your own biases and honestly read what it is I am actually saying…
September 19, 2012 at 10:52
Of course, as always, you ignore my specific criticism. I specifically said that I have never seen you advocate for different legal treatment for muslims. What I did say, is that you are a hypocrit because you regularly and consistently promote those that do advocate for different (and inferior) legal treatment of Muslims. And you ignore it because it is obviously accurate and you have nothing to say in response.
“Sammy, because of my outspoken criticism of the Orwellian-ly-called ‘Human Rights Commissions’, their minions monitor my site, regularly. I know because their electronic signature shows up on my list of visitors. If I were what you are accusing me of, I would have been charged by them a long time ago…”
Wow…. you really are a paranoid nut case. You do realize that (i) human rights commmission do not “charge” anyone, but respond to complaints by private individuals; (ii) the provisions involving hate speech have been repealed and the applicable legislation now deals only with discrimination in the context of employment, housing and publicly offered services; and (iii) the threshold for hate speech even when it did exist was well above the kind of bigotry you promote. The fact is that extreme hate speech goes on unimpeded every single day in this country (as it should, legally). It is only people in a tiny circle of right-wing extremists like you that think that human rights commissions are canada’s equivalent of the stasi.
September 19, 2012 at 10:53
“I am not a bigot – everything I say is demonstrably true. Perhaps you might do well to stop projecting your own biases and honestly read what it is I am actually saying….”
Every anti-semite and whtie-supremacist in the world says the exact same thing. You are just the anti-Muslim equivalent of them.
Xan says:
AWESOME!!!