Dr. Andrew Bostom

Uncreated, Uncreative Words

Dr. Andrew Bostom header image 1

From Obscenity to Clarity: A Factual Understanding of the Maher-Affleck Islam “Debate”

October 10th, 2014 · Essays

Yesterday (Thursday, October 9, 2014), I gave two interviews which introduced the factual basis for the recent obscenity-laden Maher-Affleck kerfuffle on HBO (“Bill Maher vs. Ben Affleck On Islam: ‘Mafia That Will F**king Kill You If You Say The Wrong Thing’”), which has been almost entirely obscured.

Much of my large 2012 compendium Sharia Versus Freedom, addressed the underlying “debate” between Maher and Affleck. Suffice to say, it provides overwhelming support—hard data—for Maher’s basic argument, minus his inflammatory language.

One of the modern tools I make consistent use of is polling data. Over the years, I have distilled the arguments down to key points of emphasis so people can understand the scope of the problem of basic, widespread Islamic attitudes—rooted in the Sharia—which are antithetical to freedom (hence the title of the 2012 book!)

The interviews, with Jeff Crouere, and Steve Malzberg, embedded above, allowed me to present data-based arguments I have been making for some years now, boiled down to their essence, given how the Maher-Affleck dispute has brought this matter to public attention.

Here are the materials I drew upon, within the time constraints allowed, to make the following three key points:

1) To understand the Maher-Affleck “debate” one must comprehend the quintessence of Islamic Law, Sharia, (for example, as I discussed more “elaborately,” in 2-minutes, with Lou Dobbs on Fox Business News, 11/9/2012 (please view the 2-minutes; video transcript, reproduced below):

[Bostom] Sharia is really foundational in Islamic societies. It is derived from the canonical texts of Islam, the Koran, the Hadith—the traditions of Mohammed, and it has many ritual aspects that might be similar to other religions, but it’s also an entire political system, and here is where it runs afoul of modern human rights concepts like our Bill of Rights, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It includes a timeless war doctrine, the doctrine of jihad, it also rejects basic human freedoms, like freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and it imposes discriminatory regulations, legal regulations against non-Muslim minorities, and women. It also includes dehumanizing punishments, what we would consider dehumanizing punishments, like, lashing for alcohol consumption, stoning to death for adultery, and mutilating punishment for theft.

[Lou Dobbs]: Is it your view then that, there is no way in which our American culture can accommodate Sharia within a multicultural society for which would be Muslim?

[Bostom] Absolutely not. Certainly not for the overt, liberty-crushing dehumanizing aspects of Sharia. And unfortunately, it is an integrated whole. It has proven historically very, very difficult for Muslims to de-sacralize Sharia, to secularize it, and to eliminate the political and liberty crushing aspects from the simple religious ritual aspects.

2) I then transitioned to hard data on Sharia support in Muslim societies, per my May 4, 2013 essay (“Sharia Über Alles”), published right after Pew released its April 30, 2013 “poll of polls, complemented by Pew’s separate polling data on the attitudes of Iranian Shiite Muslims, published June 11, 2013.

Responses to the following question on the Sharia, comprised the Pew “poll of polls” survey’s salient finding. The question was, “Do you favor or oppose making sharia law, or Islamic law, the official law of the land in our country?” Summary data from the nations with the five largest Muslim populations (as per 2010) surveyed, Indonesia (204 million), Pakistan (178 million), Bengladesh (149 million), Egypt (80 million), and Nigeria (76 million), revealed: 72% of Indonesian Muslims, 84% of Pakistani Muslims, 82% of Bengladeshi Muslims, 74% of Egyptian Muslims, and 71% of Nigerian Muslims supported making Sharia the official state law of their respective societies. The population-weighted average from these 5 countries was 77% supportive. (Composite regional data confirmed these individual country trends–84% of South Asian Muslims, 77% of Southeast Asian Muslims, 74% of Middle Eastern/North African Muslims, and 64% of Sub-Saharan African Muslims favored application of the Sharia as official state law.) Furthermore, the Pew survey results confirm the abject failure of the U.S. midwifed Iraqi and Afghan “democracies” to fulfill the utopian aspirations of the much ballyhooed “(Bernard) Lewis doctrine.” Instead, the negative prognostications, epitomized by my colleague Diana West’s evocative description “Making the world safe for Sharia,” have been realized.

After three decades of strict re-application of the Sharia in Iran (which has included stoning to death for adultery, execution for homosexuality, abrogation of freedom of conscience and religious minority rights, etc.), and notwithstanding delusive arguments that these phenomena had engendered mass public rejection of Islamic Law, Pew polling data released June 11, 2013 (from face-to-face interviews with 1,522 adults, ages 18 years of age and older), reveal an entirely different reality. When asked, “Do you favor or oppose the implementation of  Sharia law, or Islamic law in our country?”,  83% favored its application. A largely concordant finding demonstrated that only 28% of Iranians were at all concerned (i.e., 9% “very,” and 19% “somewhat” concerned) about “extremist religious groups” in the nation. These data provide the sobering context in which the Presidential election of Hasan Rowhani—an unabashed Ayatollah Khomeini-supporting Shiite cleric, and long term political apparatchik of the theocratic regime—must be viewed.

3) I concluded with data on Sharia support within the US Muslim community:

Notwithstanding Pew’s inattention to this critical matter, the results of polling data collected by Wenzel Strategies during October 22 to 26, 2012, from 600 U.S. Muslims (i.e., a sample characterized by high socio-economic status), indicated widespread support among American votaries of Islam for Sharia-based rejection of freedom expression, as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. (The First Amendment states, plainly, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”) When asked, “Do you believe that criticism of Islam or Muhammad should be permitted under the Constitution’s First Amendment?, 58% replied “no,” while only 42% affirmed this most basic manifestation of freedom of speech, i.e., to criticize religious, or any other dogma. Indeed, oblivious to US constitutional law, as opposed to Islam’s Sharia, a largely concordant 45% of respondents agreed “…that those who criticize or parody Islam in the U.S. should face criminal charges,” while 38% did not, and 17% were “unsure.” Moreover, fully 12% of this Muslim sample even admitted they believed in application of the draconian, Sharia-based punishment for the non-existent crime of “blasphemy” in the US code, answering affirmatively, “…that Americans who criticize or parody Islam should be put to death.” Also, consistent with such findings 43% of these U.S. Muslims rejected the right of members of other faiths to proselytize to adherents of Islam, disagreeing, “…that U.S. citizens have a right to evangelize Muslims to consider other faiths.” Additional confirmatory data revealed that nearly two-fifths (39%) agreed “…that Shariah law should be considered when adjudicating cases that involve Muslims,” while nearly one-third (32%) of this American Muslim sample believed “…Shariah law should be the supreme law of the land in the US.”

Americans—ordinary citizens and our feckless “leadership” alike—must re-discover, and embrace, Robert H. Jackson’s intuitive, sobering wisdom regarding the Sharia. Jackson, an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court (1941-1954), who also served as the chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, made these timeless observations in his foreword to a treatise on Islamic law, Law in the Middle East, 1955:

In any broad sense, Islamic Law offers the American lawyer a study in dramatic contrasts. Even casual acquaintance and superficial knowledge—all that most of us at bench or bar will be able to acquire—reveal that its striking features relative to our law are not likenesses but inconsistencies, not similarities but contrarieties. In its source, its scope and its sanctions, the law [i.e., Islamic Law, Sharia] of the Middle East is the antithesis of Western Law…Islamic law, on the contrary, finds its chief source in the will of Allah as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. It contemplates one community of the faithful, though they may be of various tribes and in widely separated locations. Religion, not nationalism or geography, is the proper cohesive force. The state itself is subordinate to the Qur’an, which leaves little room for additional legislation, none for criticism or dissent. This world is viewed as but the vestibule to another and a better one for the faithful, and the Qur’an lays down rules of behavior towards others and toward society to assure a safe transition. It is not possible to separate political or juristic theories from the teachings of the Prophet, which establish rules of conduct concerning religious, domestic, social, and political life. This results in a law of duties, rather than rights


All Articles Copyright © 2007-2014 Dr. Andrew Bostom | All Rights Reserved
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage(For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.

Comments OffTags:

Koranic Sanction for Beheading Infidels, i.e., Koran 8:12/47:4, Explained by Renowned Theologian S.A. Usmani (d. 1949)

October 5th, 2014 · Essays

The gruesome spate of IS/IL beheadings continues apace, “complemented” by Oklahoma Muslim convert Jah’Keem Yisrael’s (previously, Alton Alexander Nolen) brutal decapitation of his female co-worker, Colleen Hufford. Yisrael/Nolen’s Facebook page included a graphic beheading image, juxtaposed to the citation of Koran 8:12 (“I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them”), which reads like a plausible Islamic motivation for the murderous action he took.

Shabbir Ahmad Usmani (1886-1949) was a renowned theologian, writer, orator, and politician, with particular expertise in the study and interpretation of the Koran, and the traditions of Muhammad, or hadith. Usmani’s magnum opus was his Koranic commentary, Tafsir-e-Usmani, which drew upon some 14 prior commentaries. Usmani’s glosses on Koran Koran 8:12, and the same themes expanded upon at verse 47:4, in his respected commentary, far from rendering Colleen Hufford’s beheading by Yisrael/Nolen, or the IS/IL beheadings, senseless, “un-Islamic” acts of bigoted madmen—as relentlessly depicted by media pundits, and Muslim dissimulators alike—conveys with modern, chilling authority the Koranic rational for such behavior.

Regarding Koran 8:12, Usmani opines:

If the satans were encouraging the unbelievers in the person of men and were prepared to fight against the Muslims by insinuations and whisperings, they (the Muslim angels Jibraeel and Mikaeel) should confirm the hearts of the oppressed Muslims. On the one side they (Muslim angels) would encourage the Muslims, on the other side He (Allah) would cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. They (the Muslims) should smite the necks and cut the finger-joints of the unbelievers because the unbelievers united against Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad); so they should come to know what severe punishment was to be given to the opponents of Allah. The punishment which would be given Hereafter would be the real punishment but in the World too they should see a sample of that punishment and taste somewhat of the Divine Chastisement.

But it is Usmani’s gloss on Koran 47:4, a verse which reiterates these themes, where one can see mainstream, authoritative sanction for beheading infidels as an essential tactic to assure the ultimate success of Islam’s eternal jihad campaigns—cast as “severe but reforming operations”—to subjugate the world to an Islamic order.

The Truth and Falsehood are always at daggers with each other. So when there is a war between the Muslims and the unbelievers, the Muslims should perform with full strength, valor, and courage. The might of Falsehood can be smashed only when their haughty ring leaders are slain and their bands dispersed. Hence do not give way to indolence, cowardice, depression, wavering hesitation, indecision and delay in the commotion of engagement, and do not feel any fear in smiting the necks of Allah’s enemies. After wide slaughter and bloodshed when your terror prevails over them and their might is torn, at that time captivity also suffices…This imprisonment may possibly work as a lesson to them, and living in the company of the Muslims they may get the occasion of observing their and your condition and reflecting on the teachings of Islam, so happily they may adopt the path of truth and righteousness by degrees. Or if you see expedience you may set them free by grace without any ransom. At such behavior very probably many of them may be impressed by your beneficence and excellence of morality and get inclined to your and love your religion (i.e., Islam). You can also accomplish this by taking ransom money and setting them free, or you may release them in exchange for Muslim captives. There are many advantages in [these behaviors].

In brief, if you return these captives to their country, it can be done in only two ways: (1) Either set them free by grace without ransom; (2) Or set them free by exchange or compensation

The Imam (Head of the state) can adopt one of the two, according to discretion and preference…But if it is not expedient to return those prisoners of war to their country then there are three options: (1) To allow them to live like dhimmis (subjects of the second order; [i.e., humiliated, non-citizen pariahs subjected to all the legal and religious discriminations, and physical insecurities of the Sharia]); (2) To make them slaves; (3) To slay them

Slaying the prisoner of war is allowed in the Traditions [of Muhammad] in particular conditions, when that prisoner of war has committed such a serious crime that its punishment could not be less than slaying. Of course there is no hindrance in keeping them as slaves.

Warring and smiting, arresting and imprisoning shall go on incessantly till the war lays down its weapons (loads) and the battle has ceased.

Allah has power to annihilate the unbelievers without a war from the side of the Muslims, by some heavenly chastisement…[B]ut He [Allah] desired to examine His servants by institutionalizing Jihad and slaying, to see how many Muslims are prepared to sacrifice their wealth and life in the Name of Allah, and to see how many souls among the unbelievers wake up by these severe but reforming operations, and they may avail themselves of the respite, given by Allah, that like past nations He does not seize them and exterminate them all of a sudden.

Some 13 centuries earlier, Islam’s prophet, and founder of the Muslim creed, Muhammad, encapsulated this “triumphant” formula, succinctly, as recorded in a canonical hadith (Sahih Bukhari,Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220):

I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)


All Articles Copyright © 2007-2014 Dr. Andrew Bostom | All Rights Reserved
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage(For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.

Comments OffTags:

West: See-No-Islam Basis of 13 Yrs Nation-Building Failure in Iraq & Afghanistan Under Sorry Banner of COIN

September 29th, 2014 · Essays

My friend and colleague, Diana West, just gave the following address earlier today (~ 2 PM, Monday, 9/29/14) at The National Security II Conference sponsored by The Center For Security Policy.

The extracted video of her comments are embedded below, followed by the text she prepared, and kindly shared with me.

**

For anyone still puzzled as how it could be that our leaders and pundits keep hammering home the big lie that Islam has nothing to do with jihad, that the religion of conquest is a “religion of peace,” it’s important to know that such widespread brainwashing is nothing new.

Just as today’s opinion-makers seek to divorce Islam from its impact — brutal conquest, forced conversion, religiously sanctioned sex slavery, beheadings — past opinion-makers worked equally hard to divorce communism from its impact — brutal conquest, forced collectivization, concentration camps (Gulags), mass murder.

It worked. Unlike Nazism, communism has never been judged guilty or even held responsible for the carnage and suffering it has caused. On the contrary, it remains a source of “liberal” statist ideas such as Obamacare. My recent book “American Betrayal”delves deeply into this dangerous double standard. In short, this double standard not only enables collectivist policies to strangle our remnant republic, but also explains why American students can find a drink called Leninade, emblazoned with a hammer and sickle, for sale up the road at University of Maryland. It’s also why silkscreens of Warhol’s Chairman Mao, history’s top mass murderer, are sought-after items for the homes of the wealthy.

There are no such trendy portraits of Hitler, and who would want them? Who would want to swig a bottle of Hitlerpop, decorated with a swastika? So, why Leninade? Not only does the stench of death not follow the Communist murder-cult, the brand lives.

Barring a tsunami of common sense, I predict that Islam, the brand, will remain separate in the public mind from the violence and repression it causes and has caused for more than a millennium. That’s certainly the direction leaders from both political parties have been relentlessly herding us in for over a decade, insisting against all reason — against all sacred Islamic texts — that “Islam is peace.”

Thus, while contending with this cycle of expansionist jihad — a recurrence that should be familiar from Islamic history were it, too, not subject to whitewash — we must simultaneously withstand a campaign of lies designed to subvert our understanding of how Islam, in fact, has everything to do with beheadings and other violence both in the Islamic world and now in the West – and, why more than a decade of “nation-building” “counterinsurgencies” in Afghanistan and Iraq were doomed from the start.

And yes, such whitewashing has happened before. Seventy years ago, Americans and British and other allies fought against a cruel Nazi totalitarian dictatorship in alliance with an equally cruel Communist totalitarian dictatorship. As far as body counts go, our great Soviet ally had already piled up more bodies than Hitler would. To sell this to We, the people, Americans were introduced to “Uncle Joe” Stalin. We were told that Communism had changed; that Moscow wanted only secure borders. We were told, you might say, “Communism is peace.” Anti-communist books went of style; investigations into Communist penetration went into mothballs. At the end of WWWII, yes, Hitler’s 12-year Reich was destroyed, but Stalin’s evil empire had engorged fully half of Europe. Communism-is-peace-brainwashed people were stunned. But Americans were told they had won the “good war” for liberty over tyranny, and we have celebrated ever since.

Whitewashing follows whitewashing, so, also obscured was the transformation Communism wrought here at home, where agents of influence, fellow travelers, and dupes worked to advance Moscow’s will just as Soviet tanks (and agents, too) imposed it abroad. The conventional wisdom, however, remains suspended in the amber of the “Red Scare,” the 1950s period during which anti-Communist “witch-hunters” searched for “Reds under the bed” — all allegedly in vain. Never mind that many hundreds of confirmed American traitors, loyal to the Kremlin, had infiltrated the federal government and other institutions in previous decades. The important thing, says the conventional wisdom to this day, is not to connect the dots and examine whether these proxies for Stalin influenced the “American Century.”

But the facts indicate they did. Just to mention examples rarely taught in school, agents of Stalin’s influence inside the Roosevelt administration helped subvert and topple such anti-Communist leaders in Europe as Draza Mihailovic in the Balkans, and the free Polish government in exile, clearing the way for Communist regimes. They helped destroy the anti-Communist leader Chiang Kai-shek in China, thus aiding the rise of Mao – who, a la “Uncle Joe,” was presented to the American public as an “agrarian reformer.” Mao would kill at least 60 million people and set in motion events that would draw Americans into two disastrous wars in Korea and Vietnam, killings tens of thousands of young American men.

I could go on, about how at the end of World War II, Soviet plans for Germany and slave labor reparations were put over, how the UN was fostered by a Soviet agent named Alger Hiss, how the IMF was fostered by another Soviet agent name Harry Dexter White. Much of this still-hidden history at least makes it clear why our traditions are today a shambles, where cultural relativism comes from, why it’s unlikely Congress will ever repeal Obamacare, why our college campuses are outposts of Marx. Society, however, seems to prefer silence. It prefers to burnish the gilded reputation of Franklin Roosevelt, for example, rather than reckon with the fact he presided over the biggest national security disaster in U.S. history — the massive infiltration of the U.S. government by agents of a foreign power.

And today? Islam’s prophet Mohammed is exempt from criticism – a key point of Islamic law — just as Joseph Stalin used to be – a rule of the Communist police state. Islam’s history of repression, too, is off limits to strategic planners just as Communism’s once was as well. “Mustn’t offend the Russians,” went the WWII-era mantra against “red-baiting.” “Mustn’t offend Muslims” is the mantra against “Islamophobia” today. In this way, these belief systems, both hostile to our constitutional liberties, remain protected by silence.

This silence has already cost thousands of American lives in our time.

It started right after 9/11, as soon as President Bush declared Islam was a religion of peace, officially delinking Islam from specifically Islamic jihad. Official policy to this day absolves Islam of jihad, and, most recently, absolves Islam of the jihadists known as the Islamic State.

This see-no-Islam policy has also been deeply flawed basis of 13 years of nation-building failure in Iraq and Afghanistan under the sorry banner of couninteriinsugency, or COIN, doctrine. Retired Army Col. Douglas Macgregor sums the problem up this way: “The entire COIN strategy is a fraud perpetuated on the American people. The idea that we are going to spend a trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is utter nonsense.”

I maintain It would have been widely seen as utter nonsense had Islam and its law, Islam and jihad, Islam and dhimmitude, been under open consideration rather than tightly under wraps. Instead, the last two presidents sent Americans to die for nations whose constitutions, written with American support, enshrine sharia – Islamic law.

And what does that mean? Quite simply, sharia outlaws the liberties we in the West hold sacred: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, equal rights before the law, and more.

Such prohibitions themselves are sacred to Islam. Indeed, Islamic “liberty,” or “hurriyya,” couldn’t be more different from our own. It is defined by a slavish devotion to sharia. This tells us — or should have – that infidel armies, infidel governments, were never going to win “hearts and minds,” or “trust,” of Islamic peoples – the linchpin of the COIN theory — no matter how much our people bribed, bled or died.

This deduction is confirmed by the most recent polling data compiled by Pew. These data tell us that 91 percent of Iraqis believe sharia should be “the law of the land.” That percentage is exceeded by only one country: Afghanistan, where fully 99 percent agree sharia should be “the law of the land.”

What does a US lawmaker, a COIN strategist, do with data like this? If that lawmaker, that strategist wants to be a mover and shaker in Washington, DC, he forgets about them. Whatever he does, he doesn’t connect any dots. History shows our leaders rarely do. And somehow, they still end up on pedestals.


All Articles Copyright © 2007-2014 Dr. Andrew Bostom | All Rights Reserved
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage(For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.

Comments OffTags: