The Value in Islam of the Wisdom of Infidels

September 27, 2007 at 3:28 am (Books, Islam, Islamism, Religions, World War III)

One man, who has been the source of so much insight into the Islamist paradigm, basically established and now runs a university. Like many Islamists, he has a public persona, which is quite unassuming, and a private one, which is quite conniving and manipulative for the sake of Islamist causes.

Like most Islamists (and many Muslims), he considers people not based on their race or ethnicity or national origins or nationality: he considers them based on their religion. This is quite consistent for many Muslims, and explains why until now Muslims (and the Muslim community, if one can speak of such a thing) have not been able to fully assimilate into the framework of America: they consider themselves as separate from the rest of the non-believers.

Now, taking this further, such Muslims also assign value and veracity based on such considerations. Thus, only the words, thoughts, ideas, plans, and theories of Muslims have merit, while those of the non-believers are without value. This is because everything has to be done for the glory of Allah (and, indirectly, for the glory of the Muslim community) and must be grounded on true principles.

An example, a pretty early example actually, which should have made all of us pause in reflection many centuries ago, is that of the second Caliph, Umar al-Faruq ibn al-Khattab. When the Muslim armies conquered what is now Egypt, he was asked what was to be done with the Library of Alexandria. He ordered them to destroy it. His reasoning was that if a book contained wisdom also found in the Qur’an, it was redundant and should be destroyed; if a book contained wisdom not found in the Qur’an, it was infidel lies and falsehoods, and should be destroyed.

For modern Muslims, a sort of dilemma arose. What is to be done about the scientific and medical and technological advances made by infidels, which evidently seem to be true? Some say that it is permissable to use such advances if they are appropriated for the glory of Islam. Some say that all such innovations must be abandoned. (Most take a middle route, saying that innovations that are Islam-compatible are permitted while innovations that are not Islam-compatible must be rejected.) But for others, there is no dilemma: all of the infidels’ advancements and discoveries and innovations can actually be found in the Qur’an. While the infidels may have actualized them first, the Qur’an had such information and theories and such before the infidels came up with their innovations. (Which still makes me wonder: if all of true technology and knowledge and wisdom and science are in the Qur’an, why did the infidels invent or discover such elements before the Muslims?) Indeed, some even go to great lengths to “prove” how most inventions, advancements, innovations, and knowledge were actually because of Muslims and Islam, which inventions, advancements, innovations, and knowledge the infidels arrogated (or stole).

The aforementioned university guy did something I found very interesting. He was discussing political issues. He mentioned a number of infidel authors and writers and academicians (Chomsky, Esposito, Armstrong especially), how what they have written proves Islam and defends Islam, especially in face of staunch opposition, lies, propaganda, and fascism by the neo-conservatives, Zionists, and Christians. He identified each author or writer by his or her religion. (He did not go into the details of one’s denomination: one was simply a Muslim, Christian, or Jew.) He even mentioned how Christians wrote against Pope Benedict XVI’s comments at Regensburg. (And in typical fashion, often such comments — by Christians and others — are made while making reference to the supposed violent nature of Christianity, which are all canards that have been thoroughly refuted, and have been refuted, frankly, for centuries.)

But what intrigued me was a certain tendency he began to show as he kept talking. He kept mentioning these infidel writers and other infidel figures whom he talked about as defending Islam from the onslaught of neo-conservatives, Zionists, Christians, and other fascists. He began increasingly to describe them as “mussulmaan dar pardah” (Urdu/Persian: literally “Muslim behind the veil”, meaning “a covert Muslim”). Which would make sense: not only would this make their writings have lots of merit (as they are Muslims, and writing in defence of Islam) but also permits them to preserve their infidel mask (taqiyyah anyone?) so as to further the cause of Islam by lulling infidels into believing them, as infidels are brainwashed by their leaders to automatically reject anything from a Muslim.

Which reminds me: I have a very religious uncle who strongly believes, and insists, that all religious leaders know that Islam is true. They refuse to embrace Islam because they will lose their job and/or because they are threatened by other religious authorities. He also believes and insists that these religious leaders do everything they can to prevent their congregants from realizing that Islam is true: if they found out, they would leave the religion, and the religious leaders would make less money because they would get less.

Now you try reasoning with these people.

Regarding the university professor-administrator’s comments about covert Muslims: he is not too far off. Now, obviously Esposito and Armstrong are not Muslims, covert or otherwise. They appease Muslims because that is where the money is. Chomsky is not Muslim: he just wants to make money by verbally tearing down capitalism and The West. And so on. But at a certain level, there are people out there who are Muslims but try not to seem like one. They keep their non-Muslim names, they speak about Islam like non-Muslims. Then they use this persona to speak about Islam with the goal of converting the other person: the other person would already be open to such a discussion, not realizing at the beginning that the person he/she is speaking with is actually a Muslim. I know because I went to one of their events where they taught how to convert others to Islam. They even taught the participants to speak about Islam in a simple manner, even though it would be inaccurate. Better to use inaccurate terminology and get the point across (and another convert for Islam) than confuse others and turn them away. (But it still is a point of contention, with some insisting that accurate terminology — such as “Allah” and not “God” — must be used at all times.) And then there is always Prince Charles, who has been rumored to secretly be a Muslim for some time.



  1. nicedeb said,

    Very interesting.

    Muslihoon, if you could venture a guess, how many ‘moderate’ Muslims in America would you say are honestly assimilated, and value American liberty and Democracy?

    What percentage would you say secretly yearn for the ‘worldwide caliphate’?

    What percentage are extremists in thoughts and actions?

  2. nicedeb said,

    Those are questions I can’t seem to get a handle on.

    I want to believe that most Muslims in America are harmless, freedom loving, citizens.

    But I don’t know any, and I can’t help feeling a certain amount of suspicion towards them, based on what I’ve learned about Islam.

  3. dicentra said,

    Deception in the service of converting one to a religion… Guess how much trouble we’d get into if we missionaries tried anything remotely resembling that?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: