There is always a BUT...Yes, but ...

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Mar 7, 2007 at 14:34

Dear Plato,

Thanks a lot for your valuable and inquisitive comment I always appreciate and never find puerile or Moslem-like , so to speak.

>> "Until his time Turkey was grudgingly a mulicultural and multi-ethnic society. Mustafa Kemal made it a Moslem monoculture. I wonder if the larger Islamic world is so stupid or if it believes all are so stupid as not to see this obvious fact which invalidates all efforts at ‘secularisation' à la Turque."

> I am in general agreement with what you have said before this. But what you say above is news to me since my limited knowledge of Turkish history certainly led me to believe that it was Mustafa Kemal who took Turkey out of or at least tried to free his country from the Islamic grip.

He was a strange character and a even stranger reformer . He despised forgeiners , but had to take recourse to their help . He was seen as "pro-Western" , but it was Lenin's gold and machine-guns that saved his regime from certain ruin. He allegedly fought Islam but no one else did so much to make Turkey a virtual Moslem monoculture . He conducted his "progressive" reforms but to do that he relied on the most backward and obscurantist elements he recruited to his army in Central and Eastern Anatolia. He built "modern" urban Turkey but he made rural Anatolia paramount as he loathed pathologically the cities in Western Turkey , especially Constantinople , because they were so un-Turkish to his mind and contaminated as they had been recently occupied either by the Greek or Allied Forces.

> I would imagine from what you say that freeing Turkey from Arabian imperialism

It was the Turkish imperialism that you should underline instead. It was intensely hated by the Arabs who wanted to get rid of the racially impure Turkish brethren in faith. The people who stood behind Lawrence of Arabia pinned their hopes rightly on these Arab feelings. But it turned out that not having the Turks to hate the Arabs started hating their British "liberators".

> like adopting European alpahbet in place of Arabic, abolishing the veil, European attire,

I have never attached much significance to such superficial things, dear Plato. He changed not only the alphabet but also the language ! I have never heard of any other tyrant going so far as he did. Kemal Pasha decreed that the Turks spoke a wrong language. He was obsessed with creating Turkey for Turks cost what it might. But lo! Turkish is a bastard language. There were so few really Turkish words in it. All civilisatory words came from Arabic ,Greek , Persian. The nomads didn't even have their own word for "homeland". "Vatan" is an Arab word! [ By the way both Mustafa ("the Chosen one") and Kemal ("Perfection") are perfectly Arabic words.] So now our Chosen Perfection decreed the Turks should unlearn the language they spoke daily and re-learn a new mothertongue ! A special commission was established that travelled to the Crimean Tatars , to Central Asia to discover the true Turkish vocabulary to impose on the self-glorifying Turks whom our Chosen Perfection taught that they are have all reason to be proud of what they are as they are the most ancient nation on earth. They come directly from the Sumerians and the Hittites ! ...

Turkey was often compared , dear Plato , to an Orthodox church that has been changed into a mosque (a good Moslem tradition whose important part is that of whitewashing the holy scenes ) . Now scratch a little on the walls and you will see the old scenes ... Or no! Just wait a little and you'll see them as poor whitewashing falls off by itself .

> bringing in secular law in place of Islamic law

The commerial law was of German origin ....The problem was only that the merchants were no more as before Mustafa's genocidal policy it was the Armenians and the Greeks that had worked as merchants and artisans. The Turks were soldiers and peasants.

> were only cosmetic changes and just a sort of camouflage to fool the rest of the world.

I would never never try to to dismiss the conclusion as irrational.

>> "If I cared about and followed what and how Moslems „think" , then I should indubitably sink mentally to the level of a seven-year-old kid. A Moslem is unable to think rationally , outside his narrow Islam horizon. An Islamic dictator's crimes remain Islamic crimes as his assistants and in most cases he himself do them within their religious mind frame or under a religious pretext and according to traditions outside which they can't think and imagine the world."

> If you did not care about and follow Muslim thoughts how do you know that they think irrationally, what those thoughts are and make comments about them?

I was once myself a seven-year-old boy and I remember much of that time.

> Even the seven-year-old in me can see that you have made a whole lot of assumptions. Your deep study of history may have made you come to those assumptions.

In point of fact I was unconsciously referring to J.W. Draper's book "A history of the intellectual development of Europe". His physiological (he was a prominent doctor and a chemist ) theory of intellectual development of our culture is based on the concept of the age of faith followed by the age of reason which correspond respectively to mental childhood and intellectual maturity in humans. The book was quite fascinating for me.

And now thinking about Islam I couldn't resist the impression it is a sort of intellectual infantilism , a collective regression in mental development of mankind. The way a Moslem argues is so similar to the way small children argue . The difference is of course that a seven-year-old child is an admirabe person to talk to . I love talking to children so much ! ... But a forty-year old Moslem "scholar" speaking on a comparable level is just ... what shall I say not to provoke your sharp comment or suspicions , my Plato ? ... he is not an enjoyable phenomenon to behold.

> But. There is always a but,

Sure even to the extent it's not the last "but" . But may I put it this way ?

> dumping the crimes committed by kings and dictators on the doorstep of ordinary people

Are you referring implicitly to ordinary Moslems , dear Plato ?

> would be like placing the crime of the Pope in dividing up the rest of the world for the Spanish and the Portuguese to exploit or the crimes of the inquistion on all Catholics past or present. (http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c7.htm).

I find the Europe analogy quite unsatisfactory and misleading while dealing with the Moslem world. We have never produced anything comparable to Islam.

> Now the important thing is that the Christian world has realised the con job done on them by the purveyors of their religion. That is the big difference.

Sure ! The difference is that we have realized that and the Moslems can't follow in our footsteps as long as they remain Moslems. This is the fundamental difference between us and them , my friend.

> The Muslim world is only slowly waking up to this fact. That is something (the waking up) on which there can be disagreement i.e the ordinary Muslim is incapable of seeing that he is being conned because of the indocrination from childhood.

The disagreement rests not solely on that. This waking up of the Moslem world from its 1400 year-old hypnosis is impossible as anyone who tries to waken his coreligionists runs risk of losing his (if not his relatives') life , his soul's salvation , not to speak of the denigration of his memory . Christianity has never developed this deadly self-defence mechanism to that horrible degree. That's why it was possible for us to wake up from the Christian hypnotisation. It's not possible to awaken from the Islam hypnotisation.

>>> This is what I wrote:

>>'The problem with the Muslims is that the vast majority have only knowledge of the rituals of their religion and very little of the ideology that underpins it - the call to jihad, the poor ethics of its theology and its founder. They have been conned into believing that it is a religion that is peacful by nature and that its bloody past can be compared favourably with the past of other religions, especially Christianity.'

>> Your comment: "You can con any seven year-old child into believing anything , as Schopenhauer once noted. That someone dares try to con non-Moslems to believe that scrap is due perhaps to the fact that either he (I don't mean you of course , Plato!) is a Moslem or is himslef on the intellectual level of a seven-year-old child. Otherwise I can't account for for this puerile argument."

> Throwing aspersions on the intellectual level of the people in a debate does not raise the level of the argument, it merely makes it degenerate into a squabble as some of the posts here clearly demonstrate.

OK. I should never show so openly what I really feel about Moslems. But it's so hard , you know as Moslems are so ...what shall I say ? ...mentally different ...

> You have kindly taken me out of the seven-year-old mental level but maybe you spoke too soon. I am trying to make sense of what you are trying to tell me. Let me give it a try. You can then slot me into the juvenile category you think appropriate after you read it.

I have never slotted you in that category. How could I dare ?

( By the way , last time I made a grave mistake at the end of my post to you. I wrote : "I am a vegeterian so I didn't generally like that taste " referring to the metaphorical watery soup. I meant of course "I didn't generally dislike..." . It was stupid of me to make such a mistake. I do apologize. )

> 1)You are telling me that I am trying to con you (non-Muslims) into believing that the Muslims have been conned into believing that theirs is a religion of peace etc. And my purpose in doing that? Shall I guess? So non-Muslims will be sympathetic towards Muslims because the dumbos have been conned.

I was surprised by your insistence on the innocence of moderate Islam , if I understood you right. If Islam is not a religion of peace as a whole , then at least that segment of Islam is - according to you. I wondered how you could prove your noble point ? Why are you so sympathetic to and insistent on those "chosen" Moslems ? Is it your Christian compassion and faith in the goodness of Man , or belief in authorities like Dr Pipes or what ? It runs counter to what Islam was , is and will always be all about .

> 2) You see an argument (puerile) in the statement I have made.

It's not puerile. It's wrong to my mind. I have never meant to offend you , dear Plato. You're not a Moslem after all nor a candidate for conversion to (moderate) Islam as far as I can see.

> You will have to educate me here like you did about historical theories. I think I made a categorical statement not an argument.

OK. It was just my feelings that I disclosed inadvertently. The argument was that Islam belongs to the age of mental childhood in the mental development of mankind. It doesn't imply of course the Moslems will ever come of age as they have no chance to grow wiser and mature in the framework of their closed belief system. They are damned to perpetuate their sickening mantras and repeat their criminal past over and over again. They will be mentally always on the level of a seven-year-old as long as they don't abandon Islam totally.

> You have converted it into an argument and since it is a puerile one it means that what I have stated is false?

Let's say I presume there are some significant reasons to disagree with you, dear Plato.

> Which leads to the conclusion that Muslims are knowledgeable about the need for jihad to subdue all non-Muslims, they are aware of poor ethics of Islam and its founder and they know that theirs is a religion violent by nature i.e. almost every Muslim knows his religion encourages criminal behaviour in themselves and other Muslims and was founded by an unethical person.

Given the perversion of ideas and meanings practised by Islamic semantics , Moslems mustn't think there is anything wrong with their Allah-inspired paranoia. On the contrary, all is fine and positive in it as the obligatory laudatory vocabulary of Islam insinuates.

> This leads to the further conclusion that every Muslim deserves to be eliminated for the greater good of humanity.

Taking into account what I have just noticed, this corollary has such an overwhelming probability that it cannot be dismissed.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".